[Senate Hearing 106-836]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-836
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2001
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 4461 and 5426/S. 2536
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Agriculture
Food and Drug Administration
Nondepartmental witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
62-763 WASHINGTON : 2000
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
SLADE GORTON, Washington FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JON KYL, Arizona
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
James H. English, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TOM HARKIN, Iowa
SLADE GORTON, Washington BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginai
(ex officio) (ex officio)
Professional Staff
Rebecca M. Davies
Martha Scott Poindexter
Hunt Shipman
Les Spivey
Galen Fountain (Minority)
Administrative Support
Carole Geagley (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, February 10, 2000
Page
Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary............... 1
Tuesday, February 29, 2000
Department of Agriculture:
Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services....................... 183
Farm Service Agency.......................................... 183
Foreign Agricultural Service................................. 183
Risk Management Agency....................................... 183
Tuesday, March 7, 2000
Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug
Administration................................................. 325
Material Submitted by Agencies Not Appearing for Formal Hearings
Department of Agriculture:
Agricultural Marketing Service............................... 571
Agricultural Research Service................................ 575
Economic Research Service.................................... 584
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. 588
Food and Nutrition Service................................... 591
Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services........................ 596
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration...... 604
National Agricultural Statistics Service..................... 611
National Appeals Division.................................... 615
Natural Resources Conservation Service....................... 616
Office of the Chief Financial Officer........................ 622
Office of Inspector General.................................. 625
Rural Business-Cooperative Service........................... 639
Rural Development............................................ 642
Submitted questions on Government Performance and Results Act:
Agricultural Marketing Service............................... 997
Agricultural Research Service................................ 1011
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service................... 1005
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. 920
Departmental Administration.................................. 1018
Economic Research Service (ERS).............................. 984
Farm Service Agency.......................................... 938
Food and Nutrition Service................................... 959
Food Safety and Inspection Service........................... 1037
Foreign Agricultural Service................................. 1043
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration...... 989
Hazardous Materials Management Program....................... 1026
National Agricultural Statistics Service..................... 979
National Appeals Division.................................... 993
Natural Resources Conservation Service....................... 971
Office of Budget and Program Analysis........................ 926
Office of the Chief Financial Officer........................ 932
Office of Communications..................................... 950
Office of the Chief Economist................................ 1000
Office of the Chief Information Officer...................... 1021
Office of the General Counsel................................ 928
Office of the Inspector General.............................. 954
Risk Management Agency....................................... 944
Rural Development Service.................................... 965
Nondepartmental Witnesses
Ad Hoc Coalition................................................. 1051
Alachua County Board of Commissioners............................ 1054
American Chemical Society........................................ 1055
American Farm Bureau Federation.................................. 1056
American Federation of Government Employees...................... 1059
American Honey Producers Association, Inc........................ 1065
American Indian Higher Education Consortium...................... 1066
American Rivers.................................................. 1069
American Seed Trade Association.................................. 1070
American Society for Microbiology............................1080, 1082
American Society for Nutritional Sciences........................ 1077
Association of American Medical Colleges......................... 1084
Association of Research Directors of the Historically Black 1890
Land-Grant Universities........................................ 1085
ASTA Corn and Sorghum Basic Research Committee................... 1072
Biotechnology Industry Organization.............................. 1087
California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
Coalition...................................................... 1088
City of Gainesville, Florida..................................... 1090
Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports................... 1091
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum...................... 1092
Colorado State University........................................ 1096
Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association.................... 1097
Council for Agricultural Research, Extension and Teaching........ 1098
Defenders of Wildlife........................................1099, 1100
Easter Seals..................................................... 1102
FDA-NIH Council..................................................
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology........ 1106
Florida State University......................................... 1109
Friends of Agricultural Research-Beltsville, Inc................. 1110
Friends of the National Arboretum................................ 1112
Generic Pharmaceutical Industry Association...................... 1113
Health Industry Manufacturers Association........................ 1115
Illinois Soybean Association..................................... 1118
Imperial County, California...................................... 1120
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.......... 1123
Izaak Walton League of America................................... 1128
Joslin Diabetes Center........................................... 1129
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute and the University of
Miami.......................................................... 1230
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California............... 1130
Minor Crop Farmer Alliance....................................... 1133
Mississippi State University..................................... 1135
National Agricultural Aviation Association....................... 1136
National Alliance for Food Safety................................ 1137
National Association of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers............. 1113
National Association of State University and Land-Grant Colleges. 1139
National Association of University Fisheries and Wildlife
Programs....................................................... 1142
National Commodity Supplemental Food Program Association......... 1155
National Congress of American Indians............................ 1144
National Consortium for Rural Geospatial Innovations............. 1146
National Cooperative Business Association........................ 1148
National Corn Growers Association................................ 1150
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.......................... 1152
National Fisheries Institute..................................... 1158
National Food Processors Association............................. 1159
National Grain and Feed Association.............................. 1161
National Pharmaceutical Alliance................................. 1113
National Potato Council.......................................... 1164
National Rural Telecom Association............................... 1165
National Telephone Cooperative Association....................... 1169
National Treasury Employees Union................................ 1171
National Utility Contractors Association......................... 1173
National Watershed Coalition..................................... 1174
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission.......................... 1179
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission............................ 1181
Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small
Telecommunications Companies................................... 1184
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America............. 1187
Predator Conservation Alliance................................... 1189
Red River Valley Association..................................... 1190
Regional Aquaculture Centers:
Lester W. Myers, Southern Regional Aquaculture Center........ 1193
Ramsey Reimers, Tropical and Subtropical Regional Aquaculture
Center..................................................... 1194
Carter Newell, Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Center...... 1195
Myron Kloubec, Midwest Regional Aquaculture Center........... 1196
Santa Clara Valley Water District................................ 1196
Seminole Tribe of Florida........................................ 1197
Society for Animal Protective Legislation........................ 1203
Society of American Foresters.................................... 1199
State of Illinois................................................ 1206
State of Wyoming................................................. 1214
Texas A&M University............................................. 1215
The Nature Conservancy........................................... 1177
The Oceanic Institute............................................ 1183
U.S. Apple Association........................................... 1219
United States Telecom Association................................ 1221
University of Illinois.................................1224, 1227, 1228
University of Southern Mississippi............................... 1232
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association........................ 1235
USA Rice Federation.............................................. 1236
Wildlife Management Institute.................................... 1237
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Thad Cochran (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Cochran, Specter, Bond, Gorton, Burns,
Stevens, Kohl, Harkin, Dorgan, Feinstein, and Durbin.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF DAN GLICKMAN, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
ACCOMPANIED BY:
RICHARD ROMINGER, DEPUTY SECRETARY
KEITH COLLINS, CHIEF ECONOMIST
STEPHEN B. DEWHURST, BUDGET OFFICER
DOUG SHUMAKER, UNDER SECRETARY, FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURE
SERVICES
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. The subcommittee will please come to
order.
We are under some tight time constraints this morning, and
I apologize immediately to the Secretary and his colleagues who
are here to present the President's budget request to us for
our review this morning.
We have a vote that is scheduled to commence on the floor
of the Senate at 11 o'clock, and that gives us a chance, maybe,
to make some opening comments and hear from the Secretary, and
probably we will not have a chance for many questions before we
have to go vote.
So, I am going to abbreviate my comments, and if we start
on time, that may also give us a head start on those who might
have arrived a little later. I know there are other Senators
who are going to come over for the hearing. With everyone's
cooperation and understanding, we will proceed.
Let me just make a couple of observations about the budget
request as I have reviewed it. It seems to me that the things
we should notice right off include the fact that the President
is asking for discretionary appropriations from this committee
that will amount to a 9 percent increase over this year's
spending level.
And one other thing that I noticed right away is that the
budget request includes proposals for the Congress to impose
user fees, which in my view, user fees are new taxes in
disguise, of $568 million. The people who are going to pay
these are the producers of food and agriculture products, the
processors, and the handlers. The grain inspection process will
be hit, among others.
Another thing that strikes me as noteworthy as well, the
budget includes $153 million to create the New Delta Regional
Authority to assist the Lower Mississippi Delta region.
This proposal includes $30 million in new resources to
create the new authority, and the definition of how the funds
are going to be spent is very vague.
Now, there is a phrase that I remember from law school
where something could be ``void for vagueness''. If there is
any truth in that, it may be reflected in the description of
how the funds are going to be used.
And I am suspicious, to be honest, about whether this is
going to really provide the benefits that are advertised by
this Administration to help lift those who are in poverty and
who are having a hard time in the delta region of the United
States.
I am not going to make any assumptions about who gets the
money, but creating a new authority with $30 million sounds
like a lot of money to me to hire people to help others. You
are going to be helped if you are hired, but if you are not
hired by the new Delta Regional Authority, you are probably out
of luck. That is my concern. I really hope the Administration
will take a hard look at an alternative.
For example, using the resources at Delta State University,
at Mississippi Valley State University, at Alcorn State
University, where research is being done, where efforts are
being made to educate, to try to help lead and other new
initiatives that will uplift that entire region, I think the
money could be better spent if it is given to those
universities and those educational institutions where they have
a proven track record of success, where they understand the
problems of the Delta better than a Washington person who comes
down there to run a program. And in my view, we would be a lot
better off if that is the way that program is run.
There is another big concern that I have, and I think the
Department of Agriculture is doing a better job than many other
agencies of our government, and that is to break down these
barriers to trade, trying to get to the bottom of the
suspicions and the allegations that are being made
internationally about the dangers of our seeds and our food
products that are being exported all over the world because of
genetic modifications, because of changes that have been made
through the use of technology to protect the environment, to
promote efficiency, to try to deliver to the consumer a
healthier product.
All the good things that have happened because of
biotechnology and many other technologies that are used today
in the production and processing of food and food products is
all being lost in this din of controversy and criticism and
demonstrations and riots in Seattle. I think the Department of
Agriculture is doing a good job in this area, and I hope the
other agencies of the government will support the initiatives
of this department.
So, I know you are working hard on this, Mr. Secretary,
personally, but I want to encourage you. In my judgment, those
are the problems in agriculture that are going to require
additional spending this year, and you recommend here $11
billion over 3 years for new legislative costs, not new
appropriations, I notice, but new laws, to provide a safety net
initiative to protect producers from counter cyclical changes
and the fall off of revenues and profits.
That is just a drop in the barrel as to what it is really
going to cost if we are not able to overcome these misguided,
uninformed, but nonetheless very real, attacks against American
agriculture.
I ended up talking too long, but I feel very strong about
those issues, and I hope that the other members of the
committee will forgive me for those comments.
I am going to recognize senators in the order in which they
came to the hearing.
Senator Dorgan.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I
will be mercifully brief, recognizing that we have an 11
o'clock vote.
Mr. Chairman, I want to welcome the Secretary and his team.
They are good to work with. They have had about as tough a job
as you can have in this country, administering a farm program
that, in my judgment, is not a very workable farm program
during periods of collapsed prices. It simply does not provide
the safety net necessary to give family farmers a chance to
make a living during price collapse.
Again let me say to the team that Secretary Glickman has:
You are working hard and we appreciate that. We need to give
you some help. We need to change the underlying farm program.
Now, one feature in this proposal, Mr. Chairman, that I
think is a significant step is a proposal that says, ``Let us
move towards some counter cyclical help for family farmers.''
It is, I think, a move, following your statement, Mr.
Secretary, that we need significant changes in the farm
program. I think your budget proposal is a significant step in
the right direction. Is it far enough? I do not know. But is it
in the right direction? Absolutely.
And that is a breath of fresh air, and you are going to
find a lot of support from people here on Capitol Hill
especially people like me who feel that you are moving in the
right direction.
We have, in many ways, the worst of all worlds at the
present time. This committee, the Appropriations Committee, has
had to pass two successive emergency bills essentially to cover
the deficiencies in the Farm Bill, which is not designed to
help, during price collapse.
And I just want to show one chart, that in my judgment,
shows the combination of the worst possible results. This chart
shows that at the same time that we have had less income for
family farmers, we have had more spending by the Federal
Government. I mean this is a combination of the worst of all
worlds, more spending by the government and more misery for
family farmers.
We can certainly do better than that. And I hope that your
recommendation, in this budget saying, ``Let us move to a
counter cyclical approach to helping family farmers during
tough times,'' triggers action here in Congress that says,
``Yes, let us do that. Let us do it together.''
PREPARED STATEMENT
This is not about Republicans or Democrats. There is no
partisan way to go broke on the family farm. And when prices
collapse, we need a decent farm program to help, and your
recommendation is a step in that direction.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Byron L. Dorgan
Rural America--particularly family farmers--is facing the greatest
crisis in decades, but instead of recognizing the importance of those
who grow our food, we've all but ignored their situation. The crisis,
now in its third year, is driven by many things. But at its core is the
current farm policy that has failed our producers. We've enacted two
major disaster bills to try to help as many producers as we could make
it through these horrible times with no safety net. And yet, there are
those who still refuse to acknowledge the failure of their policy and
find something that will work.
We've been told that the Freedom to Farm program is fine, and
family farmers can reply on Congress to pass disaster programs to prop
up income. That is simply illogical. In 1998 and 1999, government
payments to producers exploded and net farm income still decreased.
I've held the first in a series of hearings to outline the impact
this failed policy has had in rural America. These hearings are
necessary for a variety of reasons, but foremost among them is the
continued refusal of the Senate Agriculture Committee to schedule
hearings. The Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee acknowledges
there are serious problems with the program and has scheduled such
hearings. Family farmers certainly know it has failed. And now, the
President, speaking through the Secretary of Agriculture, has
acknowledged that the program has failed and must be re-written.
In response, I plan to soon offer a farm proposal that will act as
a counter-cyclical safety net. The administration has offered a similar
and immediate response.
In its elemental form, any successful plan must target family
farmers through counter-cyclical methods to help them in times of low
prices. Conservation programs must be addressed and crop insurance must
be improved to eliminate abuse and fully compensate producers for
losses. Finally, a plan must include tools for rural communities to
succeed and reap the benefits of our rolling economy. The
Administration's plan includes these elements, and though it must be
expanded to be truly beneficial and successful, the plan is a good
start.
This initiative recognizes that Freedom to Farm has failed and
underlines the need to provide immediate replacement. The
Administration lays out a framework for assistance. Now we need to
match it with a substantive plan.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Cochran. Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement,
but in the essence of time, may I submit my statement, and as
well include my comments in the question and answer?
Senator Cochran. Without objection, your statement will be
printed in the record. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding the hearing today in such a
timely manner. It is only February 10 and you have started the ag
appropriations process rolling. I commend you for starting the process
early. I know that Montanans are anxious to see what we can do to help
agriculture this year. I would also like to thank the Secretary and
other witnesses for coming to appear before us today.
I have some real concerns with this budget. In another year of
projected bad prices for agriculture, I am concerned that this budget
was put together without any input from Congress, or from producers.
There is an obvious failure to implement many of the focus areas that
farm-state senators have been consistently pushing for. There are cuts
to export programs, to Rural Utilities, to APHIS and to ARS. These
programs have been a focus for funding to assist agriculture for many
years.
First of all I don't understand why this administration is asking
for less money than last year. It is abundantly clear that prices are
not going to be better for farmers this year. Emergency spending was a
major portion of the expenditures last year. It is time to take a close
look at where the markets are, and decide what we are going to do to
actually help the producers who are faced with low commodity prices.
I also have some major concerns with the new Farm Safety Net USDA
is proposing. I'm glad the president has come to the table with a
proposal but a $30,000 cap on payments is ridiculous. How can producers
support their families and stay in business on $30,000? The answer is:
they can't. 18 percent of producers in this nation account for 85
percent of production. I find it hard to believe that this proposal
won't hurt more producers than is currently anticipated.
$1.3 billion for conservation in the farm safety plan is a fairly
large increase over last year's budget. I am hopeful that this is not a
move to lock more land out-of-production or to promote an environmental
agenda that is not in the best interest of the agricultural community.
The Administration's budget includes $236 million as part of the Land's
Legacy Initiative. Of that, $130 million will be used to acquire lands
for recreation, wildlife habitat, & watershed protection. A portion
will be used to establish & expand community forests and open spaces.
The ``A'' in USDA stands for ``agriculture''--not ``acquisition of
lands''. Setting aside such sums of money for purchasing land for
wildlife habitat is not my idea of assisting our producers.
To add to that, these new programs increase the need for FSA staff.
Without a significant price upswing during the upcoming 12 months we
will again see a high level of activity in FSA's LDP and price support
programs. Also, as part of the farm safety net initiative, CRP acres
will be increased from 36.5 million acres to 45 million acres, meaning
there will be more contracts to administer. What's more, this
administration is also proposing a farm facility loan program. These
programs will accomplish nothing with the current staff levels USDA has
estimated.
Nearly every export program was cut. The Public Law 480 program was
cut drastically as was the Section 416 program. The export subsidy
program shows a decrease in funds of $154 million. At a time when we
are fighting for a place in the world market why are we cutting funds
for important export programs?
Farm-states like Montana depend on export programs for their
agricultural economy. My farmers and ranchers need to have these
markets open. They have been virtually cut off from over 10 percent of
the world market, due to sanctions and under-funded and under-utilized
market development programs. The disregard by this administration to
use these programs allows our competitors an open door to those
markets.
In times like these our producers need every available marketing
option open to them. We cannot afford lost market share. The Market
Development Program (MDP) and the Export Enhancement Program (EEP)
especially, provide much-needed help to farmers and ranchers to create
new product markets. Let's use the tools we have.
Wildlife Service funding was decreased again this year. I have been
trying consistently to get more funding for predator control. Year
after year, this administration takes it away. The re-introduction of
the wolf has caused severe predator problems in Montana. Yet, I had to
include line-item funding in the budget last year to take care of my
livestock producers because the USDA won't fund the clean-up for the
mess they made. I am more than a little frustrated to see that this
administration continues to disregard the well-being of agricultural
producers for predator control. Not to mention, that to fund this
program would improve wildlife habitat considerably. The coyotes and
wolves continue to kill not only sheep and calves but deer and other
wildlife as well. We don't need more conservation programs to save
wildlife. We need to fund predator control.
I have been a major proponent of bringing telecommunications to
rural areas. Bringing Internet access to Montana farmers and ranchers
increases market opportunities. It provides valuable information on
agricultural research. A vast amount of information is made available
to better their farm operations and improve their bottom line. The
Internet is becoming an increasingly valuable tool for agricultural
producers and Rural Utilities Service (RUS) funding is an important
part of that. Farmers and ranchers cannot afford to take the prices
given them. They must utilize new avenues of marketing and expand their
horizons. Telecommunications provides that service. Let's help them use
it, not take it away from them with a cut in RUS funding.
ARS is this year trying to cut the funding I was able to include
for the Northern Plains Research Lab in Sidney, MT. This funding is to
be used for by three new scientists on plant pathology, irrigation and
value-added crops. This funding is vital for innovation in agriculture.
As I stated earlier, producers need new avenues and new methods to
market their products. USDA, who is supposed to be a proponent for
agriculture, surely doesn't want to take that away.
On that same note, the Economic Research Service (ERS) budget was
also decreased. ERS provides important market information to
agricultural producers. Many Montana producers rely on reports issued
by ERS for cattle numbers and market reports. Again, the USDA is not
giving producers a fighting chance to make their own way in the global
market.
The Administration's budget suggests that there is strong support
for USDA Civil Rights activities. Unfortunately, I find that very
difficult to believe. The USDA has not proved their commitment to the
civil rights issue. In Montana, we have cases that have been
languishing at the Office of Civil Rights for years. These cases must
be solved and they must resolved quickly. I am failing to see the
action if this is indeed a high priority for the USDA.
Thank you again Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing some
answers from the USDA, and more importantly to working with you in the
coming year to improve the economic situation for the American farmer
and rancher.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER
Senator Cochran. Senator Specter.
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have
just a very few brief comments.
And first, let me welcome my long-standing friend, Dan
Glickman, we hale from Wichita, Kansas together. Our tenure in
Wichita did not overlap. I left in 1942, and he arrived there--
--
Secretary Glickman. In 1944.
Senator Specter [continuing]. In 1944 at the Saint Francis
Hospital.
Secretary Glickman. Wesley.
Senator Specter. Wesley Hospital.
Secretary Glickman. Frederick County was blessed----
Senator Specter. I am not sure if they were blessed.
Secretary Glickman [continuing]. Not by Arlen leaving, but
by my coming.
Senator Specter. He has always been quick on the uptake. He
beat me to the punch there again.
Two areas that I want to mention very briefly, and as
usual, it is a very heavy morning. Secretary Slatter is
testifying on Transportation, and Judiciary has some important
matters on the agenda, and we have the early vote.
But I want to comment about the problems of milk pricing in
my State, Pennsylvania, where the price per hundred weight is
down now under $10. A year ago it was $17, in December of 1998.
It was $9 plus in December of 1999, and those variations just
make it impossible.
We have lost 300 to 500 farms in Pennsylvania a year in the
time period of 1993 to 1998. We do not want to see America with
solely agricorps. We have a big regional battle between
Wisconsin, Minnesota on one hand and area compacts. We worked
out a compact for the northeast, but as a matter of fairness,
it ought to extend to states like Pennsylvania. And we really
need to find some way to deal with these cataclysmic variations
in pricing.
The other comment I want to make is about the disaster
matter. The Mid-Atlantic States suffered $2.5 billion in
disaster last year. Pennsylvania had $700 million. While we had
a farm bill of $8.3 billion in emergency disaster assistance,
only $1.2 billion went for disasters, which included Hurricane
Floyd and flooding in the Midwest, losses to livestock and
fishery. And that again is an issue which we have to address.
I know that you are doing an excellent job, Mr. Secretary.
Herculean efforts against so many, many problems, but I wanted
to focus on those two problems which are really not just
Pennsylvania problems, but national problems.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Gorton.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLADE GORTON
Senator Gorton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join with you in
welcoming the Secretary of Agriculture whom I believe is not
only highly competent, but energetic and caring. It is,
therefore, with deep regret that I express my extreme
disappointment in the budget that the Administration has
submitted for the Department of Agriculture.
It seems to me to accelerate a trend which has already been
too evident in turning the Department of Agriculture from a
department interested in the producers and the produce of farms
of the United States into another welfare department. We have
significant increases in expansions in this bill for things
like food stamps.
We have disguised the methodology of accepting the
protocols through monies spent by the Department of
Agriculture. We have empowerment zones. But what we do not have
is a promotion that oversees the sale of our commodities.
You know, we, in the Pacific Northwest, have lost a
substantial portion of our market in Pakistan for our wheat
when the Foreign Agriculture Service told Pakistan it was not
available when it was stacked up everywhere. We have a budget
that continues to ignore foreign market development.
With respect to the farm safety net plan which has some
positive qualities, it ignores minor crops. You helped these to
a certain extent last year with that, but we have gotten no
cooperation from the Department of Agriculture on it at all.
And I am just increasingly frustrated that what we have is a
Department of Agriculture that seems to be interested in almost
everything other than agriculture itself, and hope that we can
reverse that direction.
Again, the Administration has presented you with a great
difficulty on university and locally oriented research,
something you have always supported very strongly, and that the
Department of Agriculture wants to centralize, if to do it at
all.
So, I am afraid you and your ranking member, Mr. Chairman,
have a great deal of work to do to turn this into a decent
agricultural budget. But I must say that my experience is that
you have the competence and ability to do just that.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Bond.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I join
with my colleague from Washington in expressing our confidence
that we will be able, in this committee under your leadership
and that of Senator Kohl, to restore and write the priorities
that this committee and the departments should be pursuing.
Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your being here today, and we
do have many areas of mutual interest. I think everyone here
understands the farm prices are very low. Congress has
responded in preceding years with significant supplemental
assistance, roughly $15 billion.
We hope conditions will improve, but I am not that much of
an optimist to think they will, and we are going to have to
respond again and we look forward to, and I hope to have more
leadership this time, and more information from the USDA on the
scope of the problem so we can craft the emergency
appropriations relief in a manner that reflects the best
information used and your offices can obtain.
One of the driving forces influencing market practices and
market prices is trade. It was a pleasure to see you in
Seattle. I know you were there. I managed to wash the pepper
spray out of my face after a few minutes. I subsequently got
behind Senator Burns, and I figured I would let him take the
pepper spray, because he would be a better target.
Secretary Glickman. I may just say he was with me the last
time we were assaulted by somebody throwing bison guts on us.
You do not want to stay too near him.
Senator Burns. We draw a lot of attention.
Senator Bond. I have--Mr. Secretary, I have a very able
former college wrestler, great athlete, who is my AG-LA and he
was off at the store making photocopies when we got into the
problems. So, we have had to train him on staying on task when
we get into those situations.
But we did see there the kind of hysteria, the kind of
impediments, that are being thrown in the way of trade, that
are being thrown up by the Europeans to prevent competition,
from better equipped, more technologically advanced American
farmers. And the GMO nonsense is now being spread in the United
States.
And I know, Mr. Secretary, you have spoken on behalf of the
farmers, of scientists, of health professionals, and consumers
of using the technology to provide these extraordinary benefits
that biotechnology can provide for human, health and the
environment, and we all know more sustainable production and
more nutritious food, new medicines, vaccines and other energy
and industrials products.
I have here a letter that I took to Seattle signed by over
500 scientists supporting biotechnology, and expressing their
scientific confidence in the current regulatory scheme
administered by FDA and EPA and USDA. The letter has a
statement from the National Research Council of the National
Academy of Sciences saying that GM crops pose no distinct risk
distinct from normal breeding.
The FDA has said the same thing in the Federal Register.
FDA is not aware of information that would distinguish
genetically engineered foods as a class of foods developed
through other methods of plant breeding, and that the agency
does not require that such food be specifically labeled to
disclose the methods of development.
We have, for years, used hybridization and cross-breeding.
That is an unspecific effort to achieve a favorable mutation.
One could cross-breed a greyhound and a pit bull and get a dog
that could not run and would not fight, but with genetic
engineering, specific traits can be selected, and we can learn,
we can have a certainty in advance what is being developed.
I also have a declaration here supporting biotechnology and
endorsing the current methods of regulation signed by over
1,000 scientists including Nobel Prize winners James Watson and
Norman Borlaug, and I have a policy statement from the American
Medical Association endorsing biotechnology, urging physicians
to be public spokespersons for agricultural biotechnologies.
And finally, even more interesting, an interview with
Patrick Moore, a Ph.D. in ecology, admonishing that this new
era where pagan beliefs and junk science are influencing public
policy--he cites GM Foods as an example where policy is being
influenced by arguments that have no basis in fact or logic.
Dr. Moore was a founding member of Green Peace, and he has left
that organization.
Nevertheless, we still see a vocal, aggressive, and in some
cases, lawless group of advocacy organizations and competing
businesses, as well as European protectionists who seek to
discredit and eliminate biotechnology. And we have just seen
that biotechnology can provide the nutrition that developing
countries need through the insertion of the beta-carotene,
Vitamin A gene into rice.
I am going to ask, for the record, a series of questions
like, for example, ``Is this a largely untested technology?'' I
would like your responses. I want to work with you on that.
And finally, as you may recall, I have contacted you again
about the Foreign Agriculture Service office in Singapore,
which is a linchpin in that country. I will be following up.
Mr. Chairman, I apologize for the length of this statement,
but I want to be working very closely with the Secretary and
the other regulatory agencies in this area in the years to
come. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Durbin.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
understand we are going to try to keep our remarks brief here
so that we can be off to a vote in a few minutes.
I want to welcome the Secretary, my friend and former
colleague, as well as his team. Secretary Glickman, you have
done a great job, and I am glad that you decided to stay in
public service and to perform this role, for all of us across
America are concerned about the future of agriculture.
Over the last 4 years, freedom to farm has fizzled and
failed. If I had to give it a grade, I would give it an F, and
I voted for it. But I did not think I had voted for a bill, or
a law, that was written in stone.
We have been spending more federal money trying to bail out
farmers than ever in our history. Yet we in Congress refuse to
take a look at the law that is governing these payments. And
frankly, we lurch from year to year with emergency
appropriations containing provisions which many of us will
never be able to defend if we are put on the spot for
specifics, instead of looking at the big picture.
Some of my colleagues believe trade is an important part of
this. I do, too. But I think there are other elements. When a
State like mine has reports from the University of Illinois
that about a fifth of the State's 73,000 farms will not cover
their 1999 operating expenses, and the majority will not make
enough to cover family living expenses, this is a true
disaster, because Illinois is a pretty strong state when it
comes to farming. We usually do not catch a cold the first time
around, and others suffer before we do.
So, I hope we can work on, perhaps, addressing some chances
in freedom to farm that really will help farmers over the long
haul.
The last point I would make, Mr. Chairman--and thank you
for this opportunity. I just returned several weeks ago from
Africa, and my visits there have had such dramatic impact on
me, having seen the devastation of the AIDS epidemic.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT
Food assistance that the United States is sending is
critically important in dealing with what could be the greatest
moral challenge of our time. And I also want to tell you that
the agricultural research that we have been involved in Africa
has reaped benefits far beyond what we can measure in
continuing to provide foodstuffs for people who are living
merely on the edge of life. I hope we can continue that. I have
entered some legislation to move along that line.
I thank you for being here today. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin
Chairman Cochran, thank you for holding this important hearing this
morning. I look forward to working with you and Senator Kohl on the
fiscal year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill.
Mr. Chairman, it's always good to have Secretary Glickman before
this Committee. I've had the pleasure of serving with him in the House
and working with him in his capacity as Secretary and find him to be
dedicated, energetic, and responsive. We're lucky to have him at USDA.
Mr. Secretary, welcome back.
I would like to take a few minutes this morning to talk about some
very important issues that affect the Department.
First, I am encouraged by the Administration's proposal designed to
improve the farm safety net. A quick review of that proposal suggests
that it would be a significant boost to Illinois farmers. In fact, it
would mean more than $140 million under USDA's Supplementary Income
Assistance Program, over $60 million for conservation programs, and
more than $64 million in new risk management assistance for Illinois
farmers in the first year alone.
Obviously, our farmers need help. According to a University of
Illinois study, about a fifth of the State's 73,000 farms won't cover
their 1999 operating expenses and a majority won't make enough to cover
family living expenses. Farm net worth is expected to drop about 15.5
percent on average. The Illinois Farm Bureau predicts that about 18
percent of Illinois farms will have negative 1999 net incomes and about
22 percent are in danger of going out of business.
Mr. Chairman, since 1989 the Federal Government has spent $27
billion in emergency funding for farm-related disasters, 60 percent or
$15.9 billion in the last 2 years alone.
I think it's important for all of us to realize that the 1996 Farm
Bill, Freedom to Farm, was not written in stone. It can and should be
changed. I believe we must start now by reforming Freedom to Farm
because clearly it has failed to meet the most basic needs of
producers. Restoring the farm safety net, targeting payments to farmers
in need, and ensuring that livestock producers are not left behind
should be the first steps. And, Mr. Secretary, I believe you have
opened this critical dialogue with your proposal.
I also believe that we should begin a bipartisan effort to expand
markets for American agricultural products so that farmers can take
advantage of the immense buying capacity of developing countries. And,
reforming crop insurance should be on the top of everyone's ``to do''
list.
We must also work to broaden the market for alternative uses of
agricultural products. More specifically, I hope that my colleagues in
Congress, and the Clinton Administration, will make every effort to
expand the role of ethanol in the reformulated gasoline program.
Knowing what we know about MTBE, this should be a top priority. I
believe expanding ethanol's role is a win for our farmers, a win for
the environment, and a win for the rural economy.
We have a great deal to do and a very short year in which to
accomplish these initiatives for rural America and our farm families.
It's time for Congress to roll up its sleeves and get to work.
Now at the risk of repeating myself, let me mention food safety.
Our country has been blessed with one of the safest and most
abundant food supplies in the world. We have the science and know-how
to make it even safer.
Currently, our food safety system is fragmented with at least 12
different federal agencies, 35 different laws governing food safety,
and 28 House and Senate subcommittees with food safety oversight. With
overlapping jurisdictions, federal agencies often lack accountability
on food safety-related issues.
As you know, I've introduced legislation--the Safe Food Act of
1999--that would replace the current fragmented federal food safety
system with a single, independent food safety and inspection agency.
This new agency would be funded with the combined budgets from the 12
federal agencies which currently have jurisdiction over food safety. A
single, independent agency would create a streamlined food safety
system and lead to improved enforcement of food safety and inspection.
I hope the Department will continue to explore this idea and work
with me on ensuring that our food supply is the safest in the world.
Mr. Secretary, I want to take a minute to thank you and the
Department for your fine work in Chicago and the surrounding suburbs
with regard to the Asian Longhorned Beetle.
As you know, the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois have
been battling these pests for over 2 years now. Both APHIS and the
Forest Service have been invaluable partners in this effort. I'm
pleased to see that the President's Budget includes $29 million, a
fivefold increase in funding, for emergency efforts to fight Beetles in
Illinois, New York, Vermont, and Pennsylvania. It is my understanding
that Illinois may receive up to $7 million for Beetle eradication and
tree replacement in fiscal year 2001. I know my colleague Senator Kohl
from nearby Wisconsin is watching anxiously as the State and City
continue to battle the Beetle.
Mr. Secretary, I'm concerned that the Department chose to recommend
cutting a number of important ARS projects at the University of
Illinois Urbana-Champaign and at the ARS lab in Peoria, in particular,
regarding soybean diseases. Further, ARS does not include any funding
for modernization efforts at the Peoria lab. I'll be working with my
colleagues on this committee to address these omissions.
Allow me to touch briefly on Africa. As you probably know, I was in
Africa in January and had an opportunity to see U.S. food aid programs
in action. I was impressed and heartened by direct feeding programs as
well as programs that sell U.S. food products at low cost to finance
development projects. But I was overwhelmed by the impact of AIDS on
Africa--particularly by the millions of children being left orphaned by
the epidemic and the devastating impact on African countries'
economies. I believe U.S. food aid could be used to target communities
heavily affected by AIDS. I introduced a bill to target $50 million of
U.S. food aid for nutritional assistance for people living with AIDS,
for families and children affected by AIDS, and for development
projects for communities heavily impacted by AIDS.
I would like to get the Department's views on the potential for
U.S. food aid being used to help those children, families, and
communities affected by AIDS in Africa and elsewhere in the world.
Finally, Mr. Secretary, I included language in last year's bill
calling upon the Administration to specifically request funding in
fiscal year 2001 to implement the U.S. Action Plan on Food Security.
Instead, I found a 17 percent drop in Public Law 480 funding (from
$1.23 billion to $1.02 billion), and no specific program funding for
the Action Plan. I'm very interested in an explanation on this matter.
Mr. Chairman, again thank you for the opportunity to raise these
issues this morning.
Senator Cochran. Senator Kohl.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB KOHL
Senator Kohl. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join
you again as we review the budget proposal of the Department of
Agriculture. It is apparent to me that this subcommittee will
continue to face growing challenges. Initially the last 2
years, we have had to pass multi-billion-dollar emergency
agriculture packages. This year, farm income is projected to
fall again and again, but we will be called on to mend the farm
safety net.
To help meet this challenge head-on, the Administration has
proposed a spending program of approximately $11.5 billion
through the next 2 years.
Mr. Secretary, when I looked at this package, I was
stunned, for as you know, there is nothing of any significance
for dairy. And, Mr. Secretary, this is not acceptable. Low milk
prices and federally sanctioned price discrimination have
devastated the dairy industry in my region.
Is it not an emergency that we have lost more than 10,000
dairy farms in Wisconsin since 1990? Does the Federal
Government owe nothing to the family dairy farmers who you have
beat almost out of existence with a skewed, anti-competitive
Federal milk pricing system?
Now, I know that you worked hard to bring about modest
reform for the milk market order system last year and to end
the Northeast Dairy Compact. But, as you know, by the end of
the year, the Administration accepted the complete revocation
of those reforms and an extension of the Northeast Dairy
Compact. And now you want help passing another multi-billion-
dollar farm aid package that ignores dairy. Well, Mr.
Secretary, not this year.
The Administration will have my support when it produces a
farm package based on something other than what crops and
regions it thinks are most politically popular. You will have
my support when you bring up a package that is fair and
redresses some of the grave wrong that has been done to honest
and productive dairy farmers, and not until then.
The budget proposal before us deals with these and many
more issues such as feeding programs for the poor and bases it
on fair trade, food safety conservation and rural development.
These programs are not only important to Wisconsin, but to
America's farmers. They are important to all Americans, and I
certainly hope we can find a way to work together on all of
this as the year progresses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Harkin.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM HARKIN
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I want to join my colleagues in thanking you, Mr.
Secretary and Mr. Rominger, and your team for the outstanding
job you are doing. It is just superlative in the face of some
real problems out there on the farms.
I will try to be as quick as I can. First, I want to
applaud the Administration for its agriculture conservation
proposals that we see in the budget. Particularly the funding
for the conservation security program, which I proposed, and I
think this could really be an area where we can really put some
more safety nets under those farmers out there in a good,
beneficial manner for the country.
The increase in the wetlands reserve program, the EQIP
program, and the farm land protection program and the wildlife
habitat incentives program, all great. I applaud you for
putting that money in the budget.
Secondly, the bio-based product and the bio-energy
initiatives at USDA and DOE and the proposed tax incentives in
the President's budget, again, very positive. Again, I hope
that you will continue your strong support and your
department's strong support for those.
How we can marry DOE and USDA together to provide for more
bio-based deals similar or like the project that we have in
Iowa, I will not go into that.
I also strongly support the $9 million budget request for
designing a bio-containment facility at the ARS's National
Animal Disease Center in Eames, Iowa. This center, this
national center, is a premiere center for research of diseases
of animals important to agriculture.
You, Mr. Secretary, and I toured that, as you know, in
December. And this $9 million item is a first step in upgrading
the ARS and the APHIS veterinary facilities which are badly--I
might say, Mr. Chairman, I would like to invite all the
Senators to come out and look at this national asset that we
have out there. It is old. It has been there 50 years now, I
guess, 40 years, something like that--it is the 1960s, I am
told, so about 40 years.
And they are scattered around and they just need to be
upgraded, and I applaud you for putting that in the budget.
Again, I just want to reiterate, back to what Senator
Durbin just said. I am at this point with Catholic Relief
Services. And I have watched them at work from every place from
East Timor to Africa to Macedonia.
And again, the issue of food comes up. And they are working
in places where they really need foodstuffs, and this is just
one of the NGO's. The Mennonites, the Lutheran church, they are
all doing great things out there.
There is certainly some way with soybeans, the surpluses we
have in pork, in wheat, we are flooded with surpluses. And, as
you said, Senator, these people are starving over there,
malnourished, and we have got the NGO's, the people who do not
charge an arm and leg, and with whom you can trust and deal, to
deliver these services.
We have got to break this down some way, Mr. Chairman and
Mr. Secretary, and get more food stuffs to these ND's that are
out there doing a great job.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Stevens.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, I look forward to having a
discussion on specific items that affect my State in
particular, as these hearings go along.
But I have come today to make a suggestion to you. I was a
solicitor in the Interior Department in the Eisenhower
Administration. We helped work out, at that time, some land
exchange programs with the Forest Service and BLM, which led to
expanding lands for Tucson and Phoenix and other places that
had real problems about expansion.
This year, we are going to spend $450 million, according to
the President's budget, to put land back into federal
ownership. But there is substantial land out there that has
substantial value that is adjacent to many Western States that
is owned by the Federal Government, and actually, it can have
no further Federal purpose.
I would urge you to go back and look at the concept of
exchanging lands owned by the Federal Government, but not
necessarily by the same agency.
I was just visited by people from Alaska. This is a little
particular issue, but some of the places in southeast Alaska do
not have enough land to put in air strips. They used to be
dependent on amphibious planes.
Now, most of the planes that are being used are not
amphibious and they need air strips, but they have to fight
with the Forest Service to get land. I think we ought to find
some land that the Forest Service wants to acquire and exchange
it.
But basically, I would urge you, we have got to stop
spending $450 million a year to, according to the
Administration's budget, put land back into Federal ownership.
The Federal Government already owns too much land, in my
judgment. And we are land poor in the West as far as the States
are concerned.
I would urge you to think about some way to alleviate this
strain on the budget from this annual increase the President is
asking for in terms of dollars to acquire land.
Now, I know you do not have a chance to answer, but my
point of view is that we ought to use land exchanges to the
maximum extent possible and only use cash when it is absolutely
necessary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Stevens.
Mr. Secretary, I thank you for your patience in listening
to our comments and observations about the President's budget
request. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF DAN GLICKMAN
Secretary Glickman. Okay. Thank you very much, all of the
Senators. I appreciate your kindnesses.
My team is here. Deputy Secretary Rominger is here, of
course, with Keith Collins, our Chief Economist. Steve
Dewhurst, our long standing and perennial budget director--and
I say that in a positive way, because perennials always come
back and look better each year--Gus Schumacher, who is our
Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agriculture Services.
I have a long statement, which will be part of the record,
and I just thought I would make a couple of comments and
perhaps address some of the comments that were made, because I
know you are going to have to leave fairly soon.
FARM ECONOMIC SITUATION
It is clear the farm economy in many quarters is in serious
shape, and what we have done in our budget proposal is to give
you, early on, an idea of what we can do to augment the current
farm bill--I repeat that, augment the current farm bill, so
that we can have early debate on what not only the emergency
proposal ought to look like, but what the next farm bill ought
to look like as well. What we have proposed is $11.5 billion
package of assistance containing three general pieces.
FARM SAFETY NET PROPOSAL
One is a counter cyclical income assistance piece that will
help producers when times are bad, but will not trigger-in
relief necessarily when times are good. That is different than
the Freedom to Farm Bill. While we propose doing this in an
emergency context, our proposal is on budget and paid up, as
you know, quite frankly, I would have liked to have seen more
money in the proposal.
We will work with Congress on that, but given the fact that
this was presented in the context of a balanced budget proposal
of the President, we did the best we could under the
circumstances, and we want to work with you on the numbers that
are there. But the principle of counter cyclical farm
assistance, we think needs to be part and parcel of both the
emergency relief as well as the next farm bill.
In addition to that, we proposed a significant conservation
piece, and it was based on an idea that Senator Harkin
proposed. But what it does is to pay producers, not on a cost
share basis, but on a direct basis, based upon certain
conservation practices that producers carry out on their land
to protect their resources.
The theory here is there is more to farming than just
producing the crop. There is value in the land itself, so that
we can continue producing crops for the next generations to
come, so we have the significant conservation piece which
values the land separately from what is produced on the land.
The third part is the risk management system where we
propose additional funds. And just to comment on what Senator
Gorton says, a major proposal is included here to get rid of
the area-wide trigger in the non-insured assistance program
under current law--this is particularly true on specialty
crops--there has to be a wide-based geographical loss in order
for an individual producer to get anything out of the program.
We are proposing ending that with this proposal.
That will have profound effect, particularly in areas of
the country which have significant individual losses, but may
not have a massive hurricane or other widespread catastrophic
loss.
We think that these three pieces I've outlined here, taken
together will be helpful to the form section over the next 2
years.
DAIRY PRICE SUPPORT
We are also proposing that the dairy price support program
be extended because it will end at the end of this year.
Senator Kohl is right, there is nothing more for dairy
producers, and we want to work with you on that.
Quite frankly I got burned last year when I tried to
venture into the dairy debate, but there is no question a lot
of dairy farmers are hurting.
The proposal we have put forward would just continue the
dairy price support program, otherwise the price could fall
considerably further. We would be glad to work with you on some
additional dairy legislation.
In addition, we have frozen loan rates. They would have
come down if I had not taken that step. There was a lot of
pressure on us to reduce the soybean loan rate. I was not going
to do it. I was not going to reduce any loan rates given the
economic condition of agriculture.
FARM STORAGE FACILITY PROGRAM
We have also proposed to begin a new farm storage facility
program. We used to have a program like that year ago. We give
farmers low interest loans to build on-farm storage. Why? In
this era of identity-preserved agriculture, GMOs, all the niche
marketing, farmers should have the ability to store on farm, so
they can be able to market on a more individualized basis. We
think that this is also an important program.
So what we have got here is a targeted, national-in-scope
program that will act as a bridge to the new farm bill, and we
want to work with you on these proposals. You have challenged
us, and I think correctly, we have got to put our money where
our mouth is.
We have tried to do that within the context of the
President's balanced budget, but we know that we will have to
work with you on perhaps making modifications where necessary.
In terms of exports, I want to make a couple of comments
there. Last year, the Department programmed 8 million metric
tons of food assistance, the highest in the last 25 years. What
Senators Harkin and Durbin said is correct, it is disgraceful
that there is a huge number of hungry people out there, and we
have resources available here to help.
EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE PROGRAM
Sales under the CCC export guarantee program exceeded $3
billion, and we have got to continue those efforts on the trade
policy front. This budget provides about $5.8 billion for
international programs including $3.8 billion for the CCC
export credit guarantee program which can be increased if
necessary. I want to repeat that we will not be locked into
that number internally within our CCC authority if we think
more is necessary.
We are requesting, for a third year in a row, authority to
use unspent EEP funds for food assistance and market
development purposes. If we do not use the EEP money, we would
like to be able to use it in other market development
activities. We would like that kind of flexibility.
The budget also supports opening three new agricultural
trade offices. And of course, we are trying very hard to get
the WTO China Agreement through, because as you know, China has
made an initial agreement with us to reduce their tariffs on
our products to levels, in many cases, below the levels Europe
has in place. This is something that is an extremely important
part of trade policy and U.S. agriculture.
MARKETING AND INSPECTION
I am not going to go over everything, only a few critical
things. In marketing and inspection, we have asked for
additional monies to deal with mandatory price reporting, so we
can implement that program beginning this summer. That is a
high priority with many members of this committee.
We have asked for additional authority so we can have
additional resources in our GIPSA market concentration
activities concerning livestock and poultry. We have asked for
significant additional money in inspection at the borders, as
well as dealing with problems like citrus canker, Asian
longhorn beetle, medfly, hog cholera. And we have asked that
some of these funds be converted from CCC emergency spending to
appropriated spending in the budget for the year 2001.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
In the rural development area, our budget will support over
$12 billion in loans, loan guarantees and grants and technical
assistance, which is $1.3 billion more than the year 2000 for
housing, waste and water programs, dealing with the digital
divide that is part of the continuing support for rural
electric and communications and funding for helping rural
businesses.
RESEARCH
In the research area, the budget proposes an increase of 3
percent, funding these research activities at $2 billion, and a
lot of that has to deal with the emerging threats from weeds,
pests and diseases. Again, that invasive species problem is a
very, very serious one.
FOOD SAFETY
In the food safety area, as you said, the budget does
contain additional fees, and I am sure that we can talk about
this as we have done every year since I have been up here. But
in addition to that, we are increasing monies directed at the
President's food safety initiative and enhanced implementation
of the HACCP systems.
I just spoke to a group this morning about this, and the
incidence of salmonella in poultry is down 50 percent since
HACCP has gone into place. Safe food sells. If people have
confidence the food system is safe, they will buy it, and we
have the safest food in the world.
A lot of these programs in the food safety area are geared
to giving people confidence that the food is safe. And if they
believe it, we can deal with some of the hysteria that is out
there both domestically and on the international front as well.
FOOD NUTRITION
In nutrition, the budget provides for full funding for food
stamps, child nutrition and WIC. Based on proposed legislation,
the food stamp eligibility would be restored to over 200,000
eligible people.
For Food Stamp participants one of the things we are doing
is increasing the value of their vehicle to make it easier to
qualify for the program. It has not really changed much since
the 1970s. It is still at around $4,600 per year, for the
maximum value of their vehicle. A lot of working poor people
cannot qualify in that kind of circumstance.
NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Management of natural resources has been mentioned before.
The farm safety net proposes a new conservation security
program, and we have additional funding for EQIP, technical
assistance, the clean water action plan, as well as the global
climate change and the land legacy program. An important piece
is the bio-based fuels and bio-energy program, which we can
discuss in detail.
CIVIL RIGHTS
We continue to work on our civil rights problems, as well
as proposing $10 million for the 2501 grant program to reach
out to help socially disadvantaged farmers. We are trying hard
to improve customer service by streamlining and restructuring
the county offices to support one-stop USDA service centers,
but we have got to have the tools to do that, including the
common computing environment, as well as other service center
modernizations and e-Commerce-related capabilities for the
Department.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I have indicated other things in my formal statement that
we need for the whole Department, but in the interest of time,
I just wanted to highlight those items as kind of a summary of
the major items that need your attention.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dan Glickman
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it is a privilege to appear
before you to discuss the 2001 budget for the Department of Agriculture
(USDA).
The President's budget proposes $66.4 billion in budget authority
for 2001 for USDA compared to a current estimate of $72.3 billion for
2000 and $67.8 billion for 1999. Budget authority for discretionary
spending, which accounts for about 25 percent of USDA total budget
authority, increases slightly from $16.3 billion in 2000 to $16.7
billion in 2001. The request before this Committee for discretionary
spending is $14.4 billion.
The Department's 2001 budget request provides the necessary
resources that will enable USDA to meet its ongoing program
responsibilities as well as focusing on some key Presidential
initiatives. These key initiatives include:
--A new Farm Safety Net Initiative that will provide over $11 billion
in additional assistance to the rural economy from 2000 through
2002. The initiative includes proposals for new legislation to
provide supplementary countercyclical income assistance
payments targeted to producers actually facing reduced prices
and revenues and to reform the crop insurance program to
provide better protection from production losses. Other
legislative proposals include a new Conservation Security
Program, expansion of the Conservation Reserve and Wetlands
Reserve Programs and other conservation programs. This will
strengthen farm income support for those producers most in need
of assistance due to depressed prices and natural disasters
while also stimulating achievement of major environmental
benefits through better management of farmland.
--A continuing Food Safety Initiative for improving the Federal food
inspection system from farm-to-table through better
surveillance of foodborne illnesses and ways to combat them,
strengthened Federal-State partnerships, and expanded research
and consumer education. The budget includes increases of $27.5
million in five USDA agencies to support the Initiative.
--A Biobased Products/Bioenergy Initiative to expand markets for
agricultural and forestry products to reduce U.S. dependence on
oil imports, expand rural business opportunities, and cut our
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The budget includes
increases totaling nearly $90 million to support these
activities.
--A continuing Lands Legacy Initiative that proposes $1.4 billion for
a national program to protect great places and provide the
tools for localities and States to plan for smart growth and
open space presentation. Of this total program, $300 million
would be allocated to USDA to carry out work by the Forest
Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
The budget also focuses resources on the following other high
priority areas:
--Providing adequate funding for Food Stamp, Child Nutrition, and WIC
programs, increased funding for Farmers' Market Nutrition
program, new assistance for the Colonias, and legislation to
improve child care food program management as well as make it
easier for Food Stamp families to own a car and restore Food
Stamp benefits to certain groups of legal immigrants.
--Meeting the urgent needs for water, housing and jobs in rural
communities.
--Supporting research, education, technical assistance and inspection
activities to improve agricultural productivity,
competitiveness, and small farm viability; help solve pest and
disease as well as environmental problems; and provide a safe
and nutritious food supply.
--Expanding domestic and overseas markets through aggressive
promotion and a reduction in trade barriers.
--Continuing an aggressive civil rights policy, providing for quality
customer service and efficient program delivery particularly by
county-based agency service centers, and effectively managing
financial, human, information and other resources.
The Department also will propose legislation that could affect the
appropriations process because of the discipline imposed on the 2001
budget. User fees for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Administration are again included in the budget.
Legislation is also proposed for a number of mandatory programs,
including farm safety net legislation, which also provides for crop
insurance reform, legislation to expand eligibility for the Food Stamp
Program, and improve Child and Adult Care Food Program management, as
previously mentioned.
I would now like to discuss the President's budget proposals, as
they relate to each of the Department's mission areas.
FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
The mission of the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services area to
secure the long-term vitality and global competitiveness of American
agriculture has surely been tested by the tough times farmers and
ranchers have been encountering over the past couple of years. While
planting flexibility provisions of the Federal Agriculture Improvement
and Reform Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act), strong export and trade policy
programs, and other program initiatives already underway have helped
many crop and livestock producers, it is clear, as the President
indicated, that the farm safety net still needs to be reinforced.
The Administration and the Congress worked together over the past 2
years to provide emergency support for farmers in areas hit hard by
declining prices and production losses. However, this emergency
assistance has been expensive and not well targeted to those producers
who need it the most.
The budget includes several legislative proposals for farm,
conservation, and crop insurance programs, coupled with new initiatives
to be undertaken using current authorities, which will provide $11.5
billion in additional assistance to farmers, ranchers and rural
communities from 2000 through 2002. These initiatives to improve the
farm safety net would provide about $7 billion in additional direct
farm income assistance over this period. This includes proposed
legislation for the 2000 and 2001 crop years to provide $5.6 billion in
supplementary, crop-specific income assistance to producers of wheat,
feed grain, rice, upland cotton and oilseeds suffering from low prices
and revenue. The proposed legislation also includes an extension of the
dairy price support program and a new program to fund livestock
processing cooperatives to improve income opportunities for producers.
The Administration's initiatives under current authorities will also
include maintenance of maximum levels for marketing assistance loan
rates for the 2000 crops, a new program of incentives to encourage
increased use of farm commodities for biofuels production, and a new
farm storage facility loan program to aid producers to expand on farm
storage capacity to be better positioned to effectively market their
crops.
Continued efforts to expand and improve programs which help
producers manage risk will also be emphasized, and it will be necessary
to work with Congress to further reform the insurance programs for crop
and livestock producers. Over $1 billion is included for crop insurance
and related reforms. This includes a proposal to make noninsured crop
disaster assistance more accessible to producers by replacing the
requirements for an area-wide loss before assistance can be made
available to producers with a less restrictive disaster declaration.
Enhanced conservation initiatives totaling nearly $3 billion, a
$1.3 billion increase over authorized levels for 2001 and 2002,
including a new Conservation Security Program at $600 million per year
for 2001 and 2002 are proposed. The conservation proposals are also a
critical component of our farm safety net improvements to assist
producers in maintaining environmentally sound practices during these
economically troubling times. The budget proposes legislation to
increase the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acreage cap to 40
million acres. It also promotes the continuous, non-competitive signup
that has been underway to enroll land in filter strips, riparian
buffers, and similar special conservation practices to enhance
achievement of water quality objectives by providing additional
incentives under current authority to enhance participation. The
proposal also would expand other conservation programs funded by the
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) but administered by the National
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) including the Wetlands Reserve
Program (WRP), the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), and the Farmland Protection
Program (FPP).
These initiatives will serve as the basis for more permanent and
effective assistance to help producers cope with continuing economic
stress at less cost to the taxpayer. Unlike previous Ad Hoc (off-
budget) emergency assistance enacted late in the year, the proposal is
fully paid for in the context of a balanced budget. It is presented as
a part of the regular budget process so that Congress can take action
early in the year allowing farmers and their creditors to plan ahead.
This proposal will enhance and improve the safety net during the
remaining 2 years of the 1996 Farm Bill and provide a bridge to a new
farm program. There also will be continuing efforts by the Department
to work to expand opportunities for small farmers and others who
traditionally have been under served in our farm programs.
Commodity Credit Corporation
Changes over the last decade in commodity, disaster, and
conservation programs have dramatically changed the level, mix, and
variability of CCC outlays. CCC outlays increased from $10 billion in
1998, to $19 billion in 1999, and are projected to increase to a new
record high of about $27 billion in 2000. The increase in CCC spending
for 2000 is accounted for by higher marketing assistance loan program
outlays, expenditures related to various Administration initiatives,
and emergency spending authorized by the 2000 Appropriations Act that
provided about $9 billion in emergency assistance.
Projected CCC outlays for 2001 under current law are estimated at
over $15 billion, including nearly $800 million for initiatives planned
under current authority. Approximately $4 billion in additional CCC
outlays would occur in 2001 based on the proposed safety net
legislation.
Conservation program outlays account for a significant portion of
CCC expenditures as well. The 1996 Act authorized direct CCC funding
for CRP administered by FSA and several new conservation programs
administered by NRCS.
CRP provides landowners annual payments and half the cost of
establishing a conserving cover in exchange for retiring
environmentally sensitive land from production for 10 to 15 years. The
1996 Act authorized the program through 2002 and set maximum enrollment
in the program at 36.4 million acres. About 34.6 million acres in total
will be enrolled in the program in 2001 up from an estimated 32.3
million acres in 2000.
Finally, the budget addresses problems with section 4 of the
Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act which caps CCC expenditures
for computer equipment and section 11 which limits total allotments and
transfers to State and Federal agencies for administrative support
services to the 1995 expenditures level. The latter provisions impose
significant restrictions on the availability of CCC funds for transfers
and reimbursable agreements used to fund conservation technical
assistance and other support services for the conservation, commodity,
and export programs. The budget proposes an adjustment to these
limitations to permit additional funds for the technical assistance
needed to carry out the conservation programs authorized in 1996 as
well as newly proposed programs.
By 2001, the amount available under the section 4 computer cap will
be fully exhausted, preventing CCC funding of data processing and
related activities needed to support efficient and timely delivery of
FSA programs. If the cap is not raised, a portion of the appropriated
funds for salaries and other expenses will likely have to be diverted
to maintaining legacy systems thereby impacting staffing levels. The
loss of CCC funds for information technology and data processing also
will impede needed investment in streamlining and Service Center
modernization initiatives, restricting the Department's investment in
much-needed technology to implement ongoing business process
reengineering efforts. USDA needs these investments to improve service
to its customers and reduce program delivery costs, but the high cost
of operating and maintaining the current legacy systems that serve our
customers precludes investment in modernization without additional
funding.
The budget for 2001 includes a legislative proposal to raise the
limit on CCC expenditures for computer equipment by $35 million per
year for the period 2001 through 2002. The increase in the multi-year
cap is essential if CCC is going to meet its most basic ongoing
computer operations and maintenance costs for the farm programs.
Farm Loan Programs
Traditionally, USDA's role in the farm credit market has been to
provide a safety net for farmers who are unable to qualify for credit
from private lenders. The Department supplies about 4 percent of farm
credit. Private lenders, including the federally-chartered Farm Credit
System, supply the rest. Although the amount of farm debt has been
rising, the portion supplied by the Department is about half of what it
was in 1994. The Department's farm loan programs help farmers who are
experiencing financial difficulties due to adverse market and
production conditions, as well as socially disadvantaged, beginning,
and limited resource farmers.
Changes in market conditions impact the willingness of private
lenders to make new loans. Thus, the number of applicants seeking USDA
program assistance increases dramatically during an economic downturn.
This occurred in 1999 and is expected to continue through 2000 and
2001. As long as commodity prices remain low, farmers will have
difficulty presenting positive cash-flow scenarios to their lenders,
and many will not be able to qualify for credit.
The trend in recent years has been a shift to more guaranteed
loans, as opposed to direct loans. Especially during an economic
downturn like this one, loan guarantees play an important role. Loan
guarantees provide private lenders with a way in which they can
minimize their exposure to risk while continuing to provide credit to
their borrowers who are experiencing temporary financial difficulties.
A loan guarantee with interest assistance allows borrowers who
temporarily cannot meet cash flow requirements to continue to be served
by their current lenders. USDA has streamlined its guaranteed loan
making regulations in order to encourage more private lenders to
participate in the program. Guaranteed loans have lower subsidy costs,
and lower administrative costs since much of the loan making and
servicing actions are handled by private lenders.
The 2001 budget request for farm loans is based on the assumption
that the farm economy will begin to recover in 2001 and that the
supplemental funding provided in 2000 will reduce the backlog of loan
applications. Specifically, the 2001 budget request includes about $1.1
billion in direct farm loans and $3.5 billion in loan guarantees--a
total of $4.6 billion. This is $1.2 billion less than the $5.8 billion
that will be available in 2000, but the 2000 total includes over $2
billion provided through emergency funds. Because interest rates have
been rising, subsidy costs for the direct loan programs are higher this
year. This means each dollar of direct loans made in 2001 will cost
more than in 2000. Overall, subsidy costs for 2001 total $186 million,
$83 million less than in 2000.
For farm operating loans, the 2001 budget includes $700 million in
direct loans, $2 billion in unsubsidized guarantees, and $478 million
in subsidized guarantees--a total of $3.2 billion. The availability of
farm operating loans provides farmers with short-term credit to finance
the costs of continuing or improving their farming operations, such as
purchasing seed, fertilizer, livestock feed, and equipment.
For farm ownership loans, the 2001 budget includes $128 million in
direct loans and $1 billion for guaranteed loans. The availability of
farm ownership loans provides farmers with long-term credit to finance
the costs of enlarging, improving, or purchasing a family farm. In
addition, the guaranteed farm ownership loan program allows farmers to
use real estate equity to restructure debts. The direct farm ownership
loan program cannot be used for this purpose.
In addition, the 2001 budget includes funding for the boll weevil
eradication program, Indian tribal land acquisition loans, and
emergency loans. Due to numerous natural disasters in recent years,
demand for emergency disaster loans has been very high and supplemental
appropriations have been needed in order to adequately fund the
program. The request for emergency loans for 2001 is $150 million,
which includes loans that would be made to larger-sized farms at higher
interest rates, under our proposal to close the ``eligibility gap''
between USDA and the Small Business Administration emergency loans.
Farm Program Delivery
The weakened farm economy has challenged our efforts to improve
customer service while improving efficiency in the Farm Service Agency
(FSA) and the other county-based conservation and rural development
agencies. The increasing demand for CCC marketing assistance loan
programs and disaster assistance has dramatically increased workload
and placed new burdens on county office staff. The higher workload,
particularly for the marketing assistance loan programs, is projected
to continue into 2001.
FSA Federal and county staffing since 1993 has declined by about
6,000 staff years, from over 22,500 staff years at the end of 1993 to
about 17,200 staff years at the end of 1999. Additional funds
appropriated in 1999 and 2000 have allowed the agency to avoid
reductions-in-force and to hire and maintain additional temporary staff
to meet pressing workload needs. The proposed program level in 2001 for
salaries and expenses of $1.1 billion is estimated to support a ceiling
of 5,901 Federal staff years, and 10,766 non-Federal county staff
years, assuming proposed legislation is enacted allowing for CCC to
cover a portion of FSA's computer operations and maintenance costs for
the farm programs. The workload requirements to deliver projected
current programs and proposed new programs in 2001 is expected to
require over 16,600 staff years as well as continued investment in
modernization of the delivery system. The current high level of costs
of operating and maintaining current legacy computer system will
continue to be incurred in the short run until the common computing
environment is operational, if FSA and the other field service center
based agencies are to provide necessary and adequate customer service.
As recommended in the Civil Rights Action Team report, legislation will
be submitted to convert all FSA employees to Federal status this year.
Crop Insurance
Crop Insurance is fast becoming a primary source of risk protection
for our Nation's farmers. Participation has increased to about 70
percent of the insurable acres--more than half of which is insured at
higher levels of coverage that producers select, and the rest at the
premium-free catastrophic coverage level of 50 percent of approved
yield and 55 percent of expected market price. The program is operating
on an actuarially sound basis, and the concern that farmers had about
the high cost of premiums has been addressed by providing approximately
a 30 percent discount in premiums in 1999 and about a 25 percent
discount in premiums in 2000 as part of the emergency assistance
package that was enacted for those years.
More work needs to be done in this area and the Administration is
prepared to work with the Congress toward this end. Based on the
response received for discounting premiums, the budget includes a
proposal to increase the premium subsidy on buy-up coverage for the
2001 crop. This new legislative authority would also address the
problem of multi-year coverage and establish a pilot program for
livestock. In addition, the proposed legislation would expand the risk
management education program and provide incentives, such as royalties,
to developers of new insurance products. The legislative proposal also
includes a provision for replacing the area-wide trigger on eligibility
for the non-insured crop disaster assistance program with disaster
declarations, beginning with the 2000 crop, so that producers with
individual losses on crops for which crop insurance is not offered will
be better positioned to receive assistance.
The 2001 budget requests that ``such sums as necessary'' be
appropriated for all costs of the crop insurance programs, except for
Federal salaries and expenses. This is consistent with prior year
appropriations and offers the flexibility necessary to meet increases
in the demand for insurance. The budgetary impact of our legislative
changes will be reflected on the mandatory side of the ledger.
As for Federal salaries and expenses in the Risk Management Agency,
the 2001 budget includes $67.7 million in discretionary spending,
compared to the $64 million that was appropriated for 2000. About $1.6
million of the $3.7 million increase is necessary to cover pay costs
and $0.4 million is for information technology investments. The
remaining $1.7 million would be used to establish a pilot program for
insuring bio-based value added products, and to enhance our civil
rights activities.
International Trade and Export Programs
Strong export markets remain an essential component of the farm
safety net, and the aggressive pursuit of overseas markets for our
farmers and ranchers is one of the Department's highest priorities. For
2000, the value of U.S. agricultural exports is projected at $49
billion, unchanged from last year. While export growth remains
sluggish, export levels should improve as the economies of Asia, Latin
America, Russia, and elsewhere recover from the financial disruptions
of recent years. However, a more solid recovery in U.S. exports is
unlikely until global commodity stocks are reduced from their present
high levels.
In view of the current export situation, a number of steps have
been taken during the past year to bolster our export performance,
while assisting other countries to meet their food and agricultural
import needs. For example, the Department programmed nearly 8 million
metric tons of food assistance under various program authorities last
year, the highest tonnage level in 25 years. This included over 5
million tons of wheat programmed under the President's Food Aid
Initiative and additional assistance provided to Russia. The Department
also continued to make available sizeable levels of CCC export credit
guarantees to facilitate sales to buyers in the countries in Asia and
elsewhere, which required the guarantees in order to secure financing
to purchase needed imports. Sales registrations under the programs
exceeded $3 billion last year.
Progress has also been made in our efforts to expand market access
through trade policy. Noteworthy among these accomplishments are the
U.S.-China Agricultural Cooperation Agreement reached last April, and
the broader bilateral agreement on China's entry into the World Trade
Organization (WTO) reached last November. These agreements are
important as the first will remove longstanding technical barriers
related to imports of U.S. grains, citrus, and meat and, upon China's
accession to the WTO, the second will result in reduced tariffs and
enhanced access to Chinese markets for many of our products. Moreover,
the WTO agreement will place disciplines on Chinese agricultural
policies, which would reduce the possibility of disruptions in world
trade stemming from their policies as has occurred in the past. In
order for United States to benefit fully from the agreement on WTO
accession, however, it will be necessary for permanent Normal Trade
Relations (NTR) status to be approved for China. The Administration
will be working closely with the Congress this year to ensure a
positive outcome on the NTR matter.
Another important trade policy activity is the new round of
multilateral negotiations on agricultural trade. The objectives we have
established for the negotiations--elimination of export subsidies,
improved market access by reducing tariffs and increasing quotas,
reform of state trading enterprises, tighter rules on trade distorting
domestic support, and facilitation of trade in products of new
technologies--are crucial for the achievement of our long-term export
expansion objectives. Although full agreement on the framework for a
new round of negotiations was not achieved at the Seattle Ministerial,
the Seattle meeting is not the end to further negotiations on
agricultural trade. Because of the ``built-in agenda'' for agricultural
reform in the Uruguay Round Agreement, work on the new agricultural
negotiations will continue, and the Administration will be working
vigorously to ensure that U.S. objectives are advanced as we move
forward.
The President's budget for 2001 is designed to ensure that the work
of the Department on these important trade policy and export promotion
activities can continue. The budget provides an overall program level
of nearly $5.8 billion for the Department's international programs. For
the CCC export credit guarantee programs, the largest of our export
programs, the budget includes a projected program level of $3.8
billion, unchanged from this year's level. These are current estimates
of the level of sales that will be facilitated by the programs;
however, the actual level of programming will be determined by market
conditions and program demand. As export markets recover, the level of
export credit guarantee activity should pick up and the level of
guarantee programming can be increased in order to meet demand and
maximize export sales.
For the Department's market development programs, the budget
provides funding of $120 million for 2001. This includes $90 million
for the Market Access Program (MAP), the maximum level authorized by
law. MAP is the largest market development program and is a key
component in the Department's efforts to increase sales of high value
products. The program has also served an important role in assisting
small and new-to-export companies build new overseas markets.
For the Foreign Market Development Program, commonly referred to as
the Cooperator Program, the budget continues funding for the program at
this year's level of $27.5 million. As proposed in last year's budget,
the Cooperator Program is now funded through CCC rather than funds
appropriated to the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). This change
will provide increased stability in the level of annual program funding
and, thereby, will enhance long-term planning by program participants.
The budget also includes funding for the Quality Samples Program,
which was first proposed in last year's budget and is being implemented
by CCC this year. Under the program, samples of U.S. agricultural
products will be provided to foreign importers in order to promote a
better understanding and appreciation of their high quality. The
program will be carried out through private sector organizations and
agricultural trade associations. For 2001, the budget provides funding
of $2.5 million for the Quality Samples Program, the same as this
year's level.
The budget includes funding for both of the Department's export
subsidy programs--the Export Enhancement Program (EEP) and the Dairy
Export Incentive Program (DEIP). In the case of EEP, the budget
provides funding of $478 million, the maximum level authorized by law
and the level which is consistent with the U.S. export subsidy
reductions agreed to in conjunction with the Uruguay Round Agreement on
Agriculture. Although EEP programming has been limited in recent years
due to world supply and demand conditions, the awarding of EEP bonuses
can be resumed whenever market conditions warrant. Again this year,
proposed legislation will be submitted which would allow unobligated
balances in EEP funds to be transferred toward the end of the year to
help support increased programming under the Department's foreign food
assistance authorities. This would be a very useful tool for ensuring
that EEP funds do not go unused, while helping to maximize agricultural
exports and assisting other countries meet their food import
requirements.
For DEIP, the budget assumes a program level of $66 million for
2001. This is a reduction from the levels of recent years and reflects
two primary factors. The first is full implementation of the Uruguay
Round export subsidy reduction commitments. The second is the phaseout
this June of the so-called ``rollover'' provision which allows
countries under certain circumstances to exceed their annual export
subsidy reduction commitments by drawing on unused subsidy quantities
from previous years. In view of the constrained level of DEIP
programming, the Department will need to work with the domestic
industry to determine how it can continue to facilitate U.S. dairy
exports and maintain efforts to develop long-term markets overseas.
The budget provides an overall program level of just over $1
billion for Public Law 480 food assistance in 2001, which is expected
to provide approximately 2.9 million metric tons of commodity
assistance to recipient countries. As in recent years, Public Law 480
programming is likely to be supplemented by food assistance made
available under other authorities, including the Food for Progress Act
of 1985 and section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949.
For FAS, the budget provides appropriated funding of $118 million,
an increase of more than $4 million over this year's level. Included in
the increase is funding to support the opening of three new
Agricultural Trade Offices in Canada, Mexico, and the Philippines.
These countries have been identified by FAS as priority markets which
offer significant market growth potential over the next 5 to 10 years.
These offices, working in conjunction with U.S. market development
organizations, private exporters, State trade officials, and others,
will help to ensure that U.S. agricultural products benefit from the
projected growth.
Increased funding is also included to enhance FAS' market access
compliance and negotiation activities. The workload associated with
these activities has increased substantially with implementation of the
Uruguay Round Agreement, and it is expected to increase even further
with the onset of new multilateral negotiations on agriculture. The
increased funding will help to ensure that resources are available to
monitor implementation and compliance with existing agreements and to
ensure that U.S. agricultural interests are fully represented as new
agreements are negotiated.
Additional funding is also provided for the increased costs
associated with maintaining an FAS presence at the American Institute
in Taiwan and for a portion of projected pay cost increases in 2001.
The FAS request also includes $3.5 million for the Cochran Fellowship
Program, which maintains appropriated funding for the program at this
year's level.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Rural America is tremendously diverse in terms of its dependence on
farming and other sources of jobs and income, and its ability to reap
the benefits of the Nation's economic prosperity. Likewise, there is a
substantial range in the wealth and economic well-being of rural
residents. Homeownership is higher in rural America than in the Nation
as a whole. Yet, many rural residents lack the resources to qualify for
mortgage credit, and rental housing is often unavailable or
unaffordable, particularly for the elderly. Even the basic amenities of
clean running water and waste disposal are lacking in many rural
communities.
USDA's rural development programs are designed to provide loan,
grant and payment assistance for a variety of needs--rural housing,
community facilities, water and waste disposal, electric and telephone
service, and rural businesses. These programs represent a substantial
investment of public funds--nearly $13 billion for 2001. The returns on
this investment include jobs--an estimated 200,000 for 2001--as well as
decent, safe and sanitary housing, improved community services, and
more opportunities for rural areas to compete successfully in the high-
tech, global economy.
Through initiatives, such as Empowerment Zones and Enterprise
Communities (EZ/EC), USDA helps rural communities with strategic
planning and implementation. The Department works with other Federal
agencies, State and local governments, and other rural development
partners to ensure a coordinated effort in meeting local priorities.
The 2001 budget provides more than $2.5 billion in budget
authority. This is an increase of over $300 million in budget authority
over the $2.2 billion provided in 2000, and reflects higher subsidy
costs due primarily to a projected increase in the Government's cost of
borrowing.
Almost $3.5 billion in loans and grants is budgeted under the Rural
Community Advancement Program (RCAP) that was enacted as part of the
1996 Act. RCAP funding would be provided in three funding streams, with
States having the full flexibility to transfer up to 10 percent of the
funds within the funding streams, and up to 25 percent between the
three funding streams. This is consistent with the 1996 Act, and would
ensure better coordination in meeting State and local priorities.
Within RCAP's three funding streams, $24 million would be earmarked for
Federally recognized Indian tribes. There are several other earmarks,
including $42.6 million for EZ/EC communities, and other initiatives.
The 2001 budget provides mandatory funding of $15 million annually
for the communities that were selected in Round II of the EZ/EC
Initiative. This will assist these communities, which have a 10-year
designation, in meeting the goals of their strategic plans to create
jobs and economic growth. The budget also provides for targeting of
about $200 million in loans and grants under USDA's rural development
programs to projects in EZ/EC communities.
The 2001 budget includes $581 million for salaries and expenses,
which is approximately $47 million over the 2000 level. The increase
will allow the mission area to increase staffing and to fund a limited
number of information technology initiatives.
Rural Utilities
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) finances rural electric,
telephone and water and waste disposal services. Although most rural
Americans now have access to these basic necessities, there is still a
need to maintain and upgrade these facilities to ensure that rural
America does not fall further behind in the fast-paced world of high-
tech communications, and to address the increasing risks of unsafe or
poor quality water.
The 2001 budget would support over $2.2 billion in electric and
telephone loans, down from $2.8 billion. Guaranteed loans would be
reduced from $1.7 billion to $1.2 billion. Direct 5 percent electric
loans would be reduced and municipal rate loans would be maintained at
about the current level.
The Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program offers rural
communities an opportunity to receive enhanced learning and medical
services and to connect to the information-based economy. In 1997, the
program was expanded to include loan as well as grant assistance. RUS
expects to see continued progress in loan activity. Therefore, the 2001
budget proposes an increase in direct loans from $200 million in 2000
to $300 million, and an increase in grants, from $20 million in 2000 to
$25 million. This program will also fund $100 million in loans and $2
million in grants as part of the Administration's initiative to close
the ``digital divide.''
The Water and Waste Disposal Program provides financing for rural
communities to establish, expand, or modernize water treatment and
waste disposal facilities. Eligibility is limited to communities of
10,000 or less in population that cannot obtain credit elsewhere. The
program supports the Administration's Water 2000 initiative, which
targets a portion of the funding to serve those rural communities with
the Nation's most serious water quality problems, including even the
lack of a dependable supply of drinking water.
The program level for 2001 includes $502 million in grants, $1,032
million in direct loans and $75 million in guaranteed loans for water
and waste disposal projects. This level will provide financing for new
or improved water systems that will serve about 1.7 million rural
residents. In addition, about 700,000 rural residents will be served
through new or improved waste disposal systems. The 2001 budget
includes $648 million in budget authority to support the program, which
is an increase over the $606 million appropriated for 2000.
Rural Housing
USDA rural housing programs, managed by the Rural Housing Service
(RHS), have played a key role in providing affordable homeownership and
rental opportunities for rural residents since the 1960s. The programs
serve very low to moderate income families who cannot obtain
conventional credit and cannot otherwise afford decent, safe and
sanitary housing. Interest and rental payment assistance reduce the
cost of such housing to the families' ability to pay, based on income
and other factors. The direct loan program serves low income families
with incomes less than 80 percent of the area median. The average
borrower's income is $17,500. The 2001 budget would support $1.3
billion in direct (single-family) homeownership loans--compared to
$1.16 billion in 2000.
The 2001 budget would also support $3.7 billion in guarantees--$500
million more than in 2000. The program offers no interest payment
assistance, so borrowers must be able to pay commercial rates of
interest. This keeps the subsidy cost of the program less than 1
percent per dollar of loan guaranteed, allowing it to fill gaps in the
commercial credit market where lenders are reluctant to make loans on
their own. The Administration will propose legislation to increase the
fee on guaranteed loans, which will further reduce the subsidy cost.
The combined total of $5.0 billion in homeownership loans and
guarantees reflects the Administration's strong commitment to improving
homeownership opportunities in rural areas and is expected to serve
almost 70,000 rural families.
The 2001 budget provides for $120 million in direct loans and $200
million in guarantees for rental housing. The guaranteed program for
rental housing differs from the direct loan program in that it serves
families with incomes up to 115 percent of the area median income,
rather than those below 80 percent of the area median. The guaranteed
program is proposed to operate without interest payment assistance.
Currently 20 percent of loans have interest payment assistance. The
program will continue to use other sources of funds and financial
incentives, such as tax credits. This combination of the guaranteed
loan with other incentives keeps rents affordable for low income
families.
In the direct rental housing program, RHS currently has a portfolio
of about 18,000 projects with approximately 245,000 units receiving
rental assistance payments. About 42,800 of these units will require
renewal at a cost of $634 million. The budget of $680 million also
provides for some additional units in existing projects for servicing
purposes, as well as a small number of units provided in new projects,
including farm labor housing.
RHS administers several housing programs that serve specific needs,
including farm labor housing, self-help housing for families who trade
their sweat equity for a chance to own their own home, and repair loans
and grants for very low income households. The 2001 budget recommends
$30 million in loans and $15 million in grants for farm labor housing.
It also includes $5 million for emergency assistance for migrant farm
workers. The budget also recommends an increase in Self-Help grants
from $29 million available for 2000 to $40 million for 2001.
The community facilities program provides direct loans, guarantees
and grants to finance essential community facilities, with priority
given to health and safety facilities. In recent years, the priority
has been to serve children and the elderly through child care centers
and health facilities; however, a wide range of projects have received
this assistance, reflecting the diversity of State and local
priorities. The 2001 budget provides $250 million in direct loans, $210
million in guarantees, and $24 million in grants, including $5 million
for early warning system grants that would allow rural areas to reduce
the loss of life resulting from inadequate warnings of hazardous
weather. The total program level of $484 million is about $75 million
more than 2000, and will support over 200 new or improved health care
facilities and other facilities which will improve the standard of
living in rural America.
Rural Business
In order to create thriving local economies that provide good
paying jobs and withstand the challenges of a high-tech global
marketplace, many rural communities need a more diversified economic
base. In response to the EZ/EC initiative, many communities have
prepared strategic plans for their development. Implementing these
plans, however, requires significant sources of private-sector capital.
Within USDA, the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) administers
several programs, including loan guarantees, direct loans, and
technical assistance, that encourage private lenders to be more
responsive to unmet needs and opportunities in rural communities.
RBS' largest program is the business and industry (B&I) loan
guarantee program, which has been operating at a level of about $1
billion for the last few years. The 2001 budget provides $1.25 billion
in B&I guarantees and $50 million in direct loans, which are targeted
to areas that have traditionally been under-served by commercial
lenders. This level of funding reflects the Administration's strong
commitment to expanding the rural economy, and is expected to create or
save more than 40,000 jobs in rural America.
The 2001 budget provides $64 million for the Intermediary Relending
Program with $4 million of this amount earmarked for the
Administration's Native American Initiative. This program provides
loans at 1 percent interest to intermediaries who relend those funds to
local businesses and other organizations to improve the local economic
base.
The rural business enterprise grant program would be funded at $41
million, a small increase over the 2000 level. These grants help rural
entities, including public bodies, nonprofit corporations and federally
recognized Indian tribes, finance and facilitate development of small
and emerging businesses. The budget provides $8 million for rural
business opportunity grants, which help rural communities develop
comprehensive strategies for revitalization and to better coordinate
Federal assistance. The budget also includes $5 million for the
National Sheep Industry Improvement Center, which is expected to use up
most of the $20 million in mandatory funding authority that the Center
was provided in the 1996 Act.
The 2001 budget also provides $6 million for rural cooperative
development grants and $2 million for cooperative research agreements,
compared to 2000 levels of $3 million and $500 thousand, respectively.
The increase will be used to provide technical assistance to small-
scale farmers to assist them in developing ways to add value to their
product in processing and marketing through the cooperative form of
business organization.
FOOD, NUTRITION AND CONSUMER SERVICES
America has the most affordable, safest food supply in the world,
thanks to its hard-working farmers and ranchers, not to mention the
world's most sophisticated food distribution system. Despite the
strongest economy in a generation and the continued strength of the
Nutrition Assistance Programs, the problem of hunger persists, and too
many people have an inadequate diet. The Food Stamp Program, WIC, the
Child Nutrition Programs, and commodity programs provide nutrition
assistance to meet this need, as part of the national safety net. By
improving nutritional status, these programs are contributing to a
healthier and more productive America.
The budget includes $35,8 billion to fully fund the Food Stamps,
Child Nutrition, and WIC Programs, the Nation's primary means for
carrying out nutrition assistance policy. Over two-thirds of this money
directly helps low-income children, school age or under.
The Food Stamp Program is budgeted at $22.2 billion, including a
$1.0 billion contingency fund for unforeseen needs, on participation of
about 18.8 million people. The request is $1.1 billion higher than the
2000 level, and the participation estimate is 0.5 million higher. Food
Stamp participation peaked in March 1994 at 28 million participants but
has declined over 10 million participants since then. This trend began
before welfare reform was enacted, intensified in 1997 and 1998, and
has since slowed somewhat. The strongest economy in a generation,
increased support from absent parents and the success of welfare reform
in moving people into work are helping vulnerable households reduce
their dependency on food stamps. However, too many people eligible for
the Food Stamp Program are not applying for these benefits, often
because they do not realize they are eligible for food stamps or have
difficulty obtaining them. This trend is problematic because food
stamps can be the difference that brings working poor families above
the poverty line. Several initiatives have been launched to help make
sure that those who are still eligible for food stamps know that they
can participate. To facilitate participation, funding to promote
knowledge of the program among likely eligibles has been included in
the budget.
Several Food Stamp legislative proposals and initiatives are also
included in this budget. Eligibility would be restored to legal
immigrant adults whose children are eligible for food stamps and legal
immigrants living in the U.S. at the time of welfare reform, who have
since turned 65. The budget would allow States the option of conforming
food stamp rules on the treatment of vehicles with more generous
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program procedures. The
change will simplify administration of both programs, and help program
participants own a reliable automobile so that they will have the
transportation they are likely to need to take advantage of training
and job opportunities. Using current authorities, efforts will be
increased to reduce program error rates.
For the Child Nutrition Programs, the budget requests $9.5 billion,
slightly below the 2000 enacted level. This includes Team Nutrition
funding of $10 million and $2 million for the Nutrition Education and
Training program. A request of $6 million, the final increment needed
to complete the evaluation of the universal free breakfast pilot is
also included. Legislation is being proposed that would improve
administration and program integrity for the Child and Adult Care Food
Program, and also to reduce barriers for eligible children without
health insurance to enroll in the Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
or Medicaid by allowing health departments to use National School Lunch
Program free meal application data to target insurance outreach
efforts.
The WIC request includes an increase of $116 million, which will
support a monthly average of about 7.4 million participants with a
gradual increase so that 7.5 million participants could be served by
the end of the fiscal year. A sum of $20 million, a $5 million
increase, is requested separately under the Commodity Assistance
Program for the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. The Food and
Nutrition Service and WIC State agencies are working to improve vendor
management and tighten program targeting and integrity. Among the
initiatives in this regard, $6 million is requested to further State
implementation of WIC Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) technology
already under development. WIC EBT will improve efficiency and
integrity in benefit redemption, and it will increase operational
efficiency in WIC clinics.
The budget provides $145 million for the Emergency Food Assistance
Program (TEFAP), including $100 million in food purchases (from Food
Stamp Program funds) and $45 million for State and local
administration, not including bonus commodities. The Commodity
Supplemental Food Program is funded at $93 million, while funding for
the Nutrition Program for the Elderly (NPE) is increased by $10
million, to $150 million, to allow for increases in participation.
Finally, USDA also would increase its efforts to manage the
nutrition programs effectively and to promote good nutrition. Through
well managed programs with effective targeting and increased payment
accuracy, program dollars can be stretched and the benefits magnified.
The budget includes $129 million for the Food and Nutrition Service
nutrition program administration, an increase of $14 million from the
2000 level. This includes $5 million for Partnership for Change,
promoting coordination of Federal, State, local and private efforts in
specific target areas, primarily the Colonias along the Mexican border
from Texas to California. Also included is $2 million to effectively
promote the Dietary Guidelines to nutritionally at risk individuals and
low income households, as well as $8 million to improve program
integrity. Federal resources needed to effectively manage the nutrition
programs have dwindled significantly over the years, now down to less
then one half of 1 percent of program funding. Resources to oversee
States and to implement program improvements, such as EBT for WIC, are
extremely limited. Therefore, it is very important to the recipients of
these programs that this request be fully funded.
FOOD SAFETY
Over the last 5 years, USDA has pursued a course to reduce the
incidence of foodborne illness associated with meat and poultry
products. The backbone of this effort has been the planning,
development, and implementation of a new inspection system to achieve
pathogen reduction through the implementation of hazard analysis and
critical control points (HACCP) systems. With the phased-in
implementation of HACCP 3 years ago, steps were taken to introduce
science-based inspection practices into a system that had not changed
in nearly 100 years. Under HACCP, the industry has taken the
responsibility for identifying and addressing food safety hazards that
may occur during production and improving the sanitation of their
facilities. To coincide with these changes, the inspection program has
refocused its efforts on ensuring that production systems are producing
products that meet sound, science-based microbiological performance
standards; as well as preventing transmission of diseases from animals
to humans.
In January 1998, approximately 300 large establishments entered the
program and the following year over 2,800 small plants implemented the
new requirements. Recently, on January 25, 2000, the program was fully
implemented when the remaining very small establishments entered the
program. At this time, all meat and poultry establishments have in
place standard operating procedures for sanitation and HACCP systems
for controlling food safety processes. All slaughter establishments are
testing product for generic E. coli contamination to ensure that they
are preventing fecal contamination, and all establishments producing
raw product must achieve Salmonella performance standards. Compliance
with the new requirements, by the large and small establishments, is
very high and it is expected that the first year experience for the
very small establishments will also be successful.
Now that this system is fully implemented, there is evidence that
improvements made by the industry and inspectors are providing valuable
benefits for consumers. Data from the first 2 years of implementation
of the Pathogen Reduction/HACCP rule in large and small establishments
indicates that the prevalence of Salmonella in meat and poultry
products was reduced by nearly 50 percent in chicken carcasses. In
addition, data released from the FoodNet disease surveillance system
indicates that during 1998, the rate of Campylobactor and Salmonella
infections declined nationwide.
For 2001, the budget for inspection of meat, poultry, and processed
egg products is based on a program level under current law of $688
million, a net increase of $18 million over the 2000 level. The 2001
budget includes an increase for pay and benefits to meet statutory
obligations to provide inspection services without disruption. The 2001
budget reproposes legislation to recover the full cost of providing
Federal meat, poultry, and egg inspection. The user fee proposal
excludes Grants to States and Special Assistance for State Programs.
Requiring the payment of user fees for Federal inspection services
would not only result in savings to the taxpayer, but would also ensure
that sufficient resources are available to provide the mandatory
inspection services needed to meet increasing industry demand, while
representing less than 1 cent per pound inspected to consumers.
The 2001 budget includes increases to enhance the implementation of
HACCP and science-based inspection procedures. Currently, the Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is examining how to redefine the
functions of inspection personnel under a HACCP-based food safety
system. The inspection reforms being evaluated are expected to have a
substantial impact on the deployment and compensation of FSIS in-plant
personnel. The overall complexity of inspection work will increase as
will the inspector's responsibility. Offsetting increased costs for
implementing the reforms will be savings resulting from an anticipated
reduction of part-time and temporary personnel not needed to conduct
certain inspection functions. In addition, FSIS will also implement
daily randomized inspection in processing establishments, rather than
conducting inspection during each shift. Implementation of randomized
processing inspection practices in 2001 will lead to better utilization
of inspection personnel and eliminate the need for inspection services
on an overtime basis, saving the industry overtime charges.
In order to ensure that all establishments producing meat and
poultry products for U.S. consumers are meeting HACCP requirements, the
budget includes funding to increase the number and intensity of
comprehensive reviews of State and foreign inspection programs to
assure that they are equivalent with Federal requirements. In addition,
the implementation of HACCP and other regulatory reforms has placed
increased demands on supervisors and inspectors for learning new
processes that have increased the complexity of inspection activities.
In order to ensure that these new functions are uniformly and
effectively applied, FSIS needs to enable its inspection workforce to
hold periodic meetings to address concerns and questions inspectors may
have regarding verification of HACCP systems, process control systems,
and pathogen testing. The budget also provides the resources needed to
accelerate regulatory reform through the elimination of regulations not
compatible with HACCP. The budget provides additional funding for Codex
Alimentarius, which will be used to prepare U.S. delegates to Codex for
leadership in international food safety issues through technical
training seminars.
The USDA strategy for improving food safety has been multi-faceted
and broad, involving not only Federally inspected establishments, but
also the entire farm- to-table continuum. Under the President's Food
Safety Initiative for 2001, eight USDA agencies are requesting a total
of $163.7 million, an increase of $27.4 million over the 2000 level.
Research and data collection on food safety hazards and developing
means to control them continue to be a high priority activity for USDA.
In order to continue USDA's success in reducing microbial contamination
of meat, poultry, and eggs, the budget includes funding to implement
proposed legislation to permit the interstate shipment of State
inspected products, and implement the Shell Egg Action Plan.
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
At a national conservation summit that USDA hosted late last year,
the Department released the latest Natural Resources Inventory (NRI)
demonstrating that American agriculture will be facing a mounting array
of conservation challenges in the 21st century. Many of these
challenges, which appear to be growing faster than we can solve them,
are all too familiar and include the need to conserve and protect our
Nation's valuable private land, reduce soil erosion, improve water
quality, limit the loss of prime agricultural land to development,
protect and restore wetlands, and enhance fish and wildlife habitat.
The 2001 budget recognizes the importance that the public has placed on
these natural resource concerns and a number of proposals are included
in the budget to help the Department address them.
Overall the budget for 2001 includes a funding level for the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) that totals about $2.3
billion, including $877 million in appropriated funding and $1.4
billion in funding from the CCC. This also includes $654 million for
conservation technical assistance, a 13 percent increase, which
represents the foundation of the Department's partnership with
conservation districts and farmers, as well as the primary means by
which the Department addresses many of the conservation priorities
mentioned above.
The budget recognizes the important contribution that agriculture
can make in addressing water quality and implementing the
Administration's Clean Water Action Plan. Polluted runoff resulting
from animal feeding operations (AFO's) are one of Agriculture's most
critical challenges in preventing water pollution in the Nation and
meeting this challenge continues to be a high priority within the
Department. To help AFO's develop and implement nutrient management
plans, NRCS will direct a total of $87 million in technical assistance
funding in 2001 which represents an increase of $20 million and a
redirection of $11 million. Financial assistance that AFO's might need
to implement the plans will come from the EQIP which is funded through
CCC and for which we are seeking an increase of $151 million. The
budget also supports actions to strengthen local leadership capacity in
the area of watershed restoration planning. NRCS will direct $10
million to competitive partnership grants to enable locally-led
institutions, such as conservation districts or watershed councils, to
hire non-Federal watershed coordinators who will take an active role in
problem identification and goal setting. An additional $3 million is
provided for monitoring work to help target resources and document
baseline conditions and performance.
Last month the Vice President announced an ambitious new plan to
support the farm safety net while at the same time promoting
conservation, preserving farmland, and protecting soil and water
quality. This plan recognizes the fact that soil and water are vital
resources, and that producers should be compensated for their husbandry
of these resources, just as they are for crop and livestock
commodities. A cornerstone of this proposal is the new $600 million
Conservation Security Program which will be targeted to family farmers
and ranchers who meet certain income-related criteria but who still
want to practice environmentally sound land management practices.
Through this program, the Department will make direct payments to
producers to keep their agricultural operations economically and
environmentally sustainable by compensating them for voluntary land
stewardship. It will also be a significant new incentive for farmers to
install important additional conservation practices such as nutrient
and residue management and environmentally sound grazing. In further
support of this farm safety net proposal, the Department will seek to
reauthorize and fund the Farmland Protection Program and the Wildlife
Habitat Incentives Program and to expand the Wetlands Reserve and
Conservation Reserve Programs.
In support of the Administration's Global Climate Change
Initiative, the budget includes an additional $12 million for the
conservation technical assistance program to develop accurate baseline
soil carbon data and to determine the impacts of Federal programs on
soil carbon stocks at the national, regional and field levels. In
addition, NRCS will devote $3 million to fund demonstration and
research pilot projects to test various carbon sequestration and
greenhouse gas mitigation strategies and monitoring mechanisms.
Other budget increases include $5 million to enable NRCS to help
communities plan, develop and implement conservation based biomass
production systems and $5 million for financial and technical
assistance for the Community/Federal Information Partnerships in
support of the Administration's Livability initiative, which will allow
communities to develop and use geospatial data for land-use planning
and decisions.
Funds will again be limited in the watershed planning and
construction area where allocations will be made only to those projects
that demonstrate cost effectiveness and clear environmental need.
Watershed plans will continue to be closely examined to eliminate those
projects that have become infeasible in order to reduce the backlog of
unfunded work. The budget request also includes the use of $4 million
in subsidy budget authority for a new $60 million loan program that
will provide loans to State and local governments for the
rehabilitation of the more than 10,000 project dams that have been
installed with USDA funding over the past 50 years. Many of these older
projects are now approaching the end of their projected life span.
Finally, the Department's 2001 budget will continue to support the
315 authorized Resource Conservation and Development areas. While
budget constraints preclude any new area authorizations this year, the
ongoing program will continue to improve State and local leadership
capabilities in planning, developing and carrying out resource
conservation programs.
RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS
The Research, Education, and Economics (REE) programs aim to
address increasingly complex issues faced by producers as we enter the
21st century by: (1) warding off any potential threats to agricultural
productivity posed by deadly pests and diseases of U.S. and foreign
origin; (2) helping the farming community to produce affordable high
quality foods that are safe and nutritious by taking advantage of
cutting edge tools such as biotechnology; and (3) creating a future
workforce that is capable of addressing emerging issues in agriculture.
For the REE mission area increases are provided for developing
novel methods to prevent and control exotic diseases, pests, and
invasive species that threaten U.S. productivity; accelerating the
development and commercialization of biofuels and other valuable
biobased products made from agricultural and forestry resources;
promoting agricultural production practices that are environmentally-
sound; expanding higher education capacity in agricultural and food
sciences; enhancing nutrition education and food recovery efforts to
fight hunger; and providing important economic and statistical
information for decision-makers to better address key issues in
agriculture.
Agricultural Research
The 2001 budget provides $894 million for the research programs
carried out by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), reflecting an
increase of about $64 million, or 7.7 percent above the 2000 enacted
level. Within the total, the budget provides increases totaling nearly
$98 million, for top Administration initiatives and priorities, such as
biobased fuels and products and the counter-terrorism initiative aiming
to prevent and control acts of chemical and biological terrorism
against U.S. agriculture. The initiatives will be funded in part
through the savings achieved from the termination of lower priority
projects, totaling more than $42 million. An increase of $2 million is
also provided for the National Agricultural Library to rapidly respond
to information requests in print and electronic form, increase digital
publishing, and expand access to key agriculture-related information.
To identify, prevent, and control exotic and invasive diseases and
pests, an increase of $23.2 million is included in the ARS budget. The
increase includes $14.4 million for expanding the diagnostic
capabilities to prevent acts of biological terrorism against U.S.
agriculture, and preventing and controlling infectious zoonotic
diseases afflicting livestock and aquaculture. The increase also
includes $4.3 million for invasive species, and $4.5 million for Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) related activities. An increase of $21
million is also provided to the Cooperative State Research Education,
and Extension Service (CSREES) for competitive grants to develop
intermediate- and longer-term pest control alternatives in response to
FQPA.
Additional investments in genetic research can potentially increase
agricultural productivity and lessen the impact of agricultural
practices on the environment by generating economically desirable crops
and animal products that are naturally resistant to deadly diseases and
pests. The ARS budget contains an increase of $12 million for genetic
research. Additional funding, totaling $12 million, is also available
under the National Research Initiative (NRI) competitive grants for
constructing genomic maps, conducting map-based cloning of select
genes, and manipulating microbial genomes to increase agricultural
productivity.
Scientific and technological advances in biobased products research
make it possible to enhance farm income, strengthen U.S. energy
security, and protect the environment. An increase of $14 million for
research to improve the conversion of agricultural materials and
feedstocks into biofuels, and enhance the development of valuable
biobased products. An additional $9.6 million is also included in the
CSREES budget for competitive grants to generate new information and
tools for producers to grow and harvest alternative crops, and for
manufacturers to convert the raw materials into valuable products for
use by industry and consumers.
Other continuing ARS budget proposals include:
--An increase of $5.7 million for food safety research in support of
the President's Food Safety Initiative. The increase will
support both pre-harvest and post-harvest research. Additional
funding, totaling $7.7 million, is available under the NRI to
better identify risk factors in food production from farm-to-
table.
--An increase of $17.3 million for research in support of the
President's Human Nutrition Initiative, aimed at increasing the
understanding of how certain nutrients impact human health and
weight-loss in individuals.
--An increase of $23.7 million is provided to promote environmentally
sound production practices, enhance the understanding of the
adverse impacts of global climate change on food production,
and develop methods to improve air quality.
The ARS budget also includes an additional $39.3 million for
facility construction and modernization projects at five ARS locations,
including planning and design of a new Biosafety Level-3 facility at
the National Animal Disease Center at Ames, Iowa, improvements to
support new facilities at Beltsville, Maryland; continued modernization
and construction at the Plum Island facility in New York, continued
modernization of the Western Regional Research Center at Albany,
California; and to upgrade the U.S. National Arboretum and the National
Agricultural Library.
Research, Education, and Extension
The 2001 discretionary budget request for CSREES over $972 million,
an increase of $22 million above the 2000 enacted level, with a shift
within the total for several integrated research, education, and
extension activities, targeting important programs such as water
quality, food safety, and the economic viability of small farm
producers. In addition to research programs financed with discretionary
funding provided in appropriation bills, the Department has launched
the $120 million initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems and
will also use funding available under the Fund for Rural America for
various research and extension initiatives. These initiatives will be
continued in 2001. An increase of $31 million is also provided for the
NRI, funding it at $150 million. NRI supports cutting edge research
aimed at addressing critical issues in agriculture by allowing the
Nation's best scientists to compete for grant funds. The research
funded under the NRI targets key areas, such as plant and animal
genetics, human nutrition, global climate change, animal waste
management, and pest control.
Specific budget proposals for CSREES include:
--An increase of over $9 million for higher education programs
through expanding Institution Challenge Grants, Graduate
Fellowship Grants, and the Multicultural Scholars program, as
well as enhancing the educational capacity at the Hispanic
Serving Institutions, and the 1890 institutions. The increase
also adds to the balance of the Native American Institutions
Endowment Fund to enhance educational capacity and support
facility renovation and construction at Tribal colleges.
--Over $5 million in new funding for nonprofit groups and faith-based
organizations to expand community-based efforts to fight
hunger, improve nutrition, strengthen local food systems, and
help low-income families move from poverty to self-sufficiency.
--$5 million in new funding for a new Youth Farm Safety Education and
Certification program to deliver safety training and
certification to youth and migrant workers who may have limited
access to formal education.
Economics and Statistics
The 2001 budget for the Economic Research Service (ERS) and the
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), in total, is $156
million, down $9 million from the 2000 enacted level. The proposed
increases of $5.2 million are provided to support economic analysis
that improves public and private decisionmaking and meet the
statistical data needs of our customers, are offset by a decrease of
$14.2 million, resulting in part from the proposal to transfer food
program studies from ERS to the Food and Nutrition Service.
Funding proposals include:
--An increase of $1 million for ERS for continuing analysis of market
concentration, focusing on identifying where concentration is
occurring in the marketing chain and who is affected.
Assistance would also be provided to the Department of Justice
for monitoring merger activity.
--An increase of $0.7 million for ERS to assess the economic
potential for domestic carbon sequestration in agricultural
soils and identify the appropriate economic incentives for such
activity.
--An increase of $0.5 million for ERS to expand research and
collaboration with appropriate institutions in developing
countries to find solutions for global food insecurity.
--Increases of $3.2 million for NASS to expand the monitoring of
pesticide use, expand the current hog survey, develop computer
security for confidential and market sensitive information and
statistics, and begin preparations for the 2002 Census of
Agriculture.
MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS
The Marketing and Regulatory Programs facilitate domestic and
international marketing of U.S. agricultural products by: (1) reducing
international trade barriers and assuring that all sanitary and
phytosanitary requirements are based on sound science; (2) protecting
domestic producers from animal and plant pests and diseases; (3)
monitoring markets to assure fair trading practices; (4) promoting
competition and efficient marketing; (5) reducing the effects of
destructive wildlife; and (6) assuring the well-being of research,
exhibition, and pet animals. Consumers, as well as farmers, ranchers,
handlers, processors, and other marketers in the agricultural sector,
benefit from these activities.
The budget includes an increase of $15 million for the Agricultural
Marketing Service (AMS) for a number of important activities. It would
be used to (1) continue the Mandatory Price Reporting for livestock
begun in 2000; (2) expand voluntary market news reporting to include
international and organic markets data; (3) finalize the National
Organic Standards; (4) enhance the rapid response capability of the
Pesticide Data Program (PDP) necessary to support the Department's
responsibilities to meet the Environmental Protection Agency's data
requirements for agricultural pesticide residues for drinking water
under the Food Quality Protection Act; and (5) conduct microbiological
testing of fruits and vegetables to support the President's Food Safety
initiative.
For the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the
budget includes an increase in current law appropriated funding of
$74.3 million. The increase for 2001 reflects a decision to fund,
through appropriations, several programs that had been started with
funds transferred from CCC. These continuing activities can no longer
be considered ``emergencies.'' These programs address the detection and
exclusion of pests and diseases, including Mediterranean fruit fly,
Citrus Canker, Asian Long-horned Beetle, and Hog Colera. The budget
also improves APHIS' Emergency Management System and implements a new
Invasive Species program. These efforts will address demands to protect
American agriculture from deliberate or accidental introductions of
animal and plant pests and diseases from abroad. Other priority
increases are requested in the following areas: (1) Agricultural
Quarantine Inspection services will be improved along U.S. borders and
ports of entry to match the greater demands for these services, by
using additional point-of-entry inspectors, expansion of canine teams,
and state-of-the art high-definition x-ray machines; (2) Animal Health
Monitoring and Surveillance will continue to assure our trading
partners of the highest quality products, by maintaining
epidemiological and statistical principles of critical animal disease
control and diagnostic testing methods; and (3) Animal care activities
will increase the number of inspections to assure violations are
corrected, expand public outreach, and encourage stakeholder and
industry participation. Also, legislation will be proposed to increase
license fees on the entities regulated under the Animal Welfare Act to
recover the field level costs of administering the Act and to increase
biotechnology permit fees to recover the costs of providing such
services.
The budget requests an increase for the Grain Inspection, Packers
and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) in current law appropriations of
$7.1 million so that grain inspection activities for standardization,
compliance, methods development, and all activities under the Packers
and Stockyards Program are achieved. GIPSA needs to address the complex
quality information needs emerging as a result of today's
biotechnological advances, in order to meet market and consumer demands
with respect to genetically engineered grains and grain products. New
testing methods will permit greater transparency from grain inspection,
adding value to grain products so producers can continue to compete in
the global economy. Specifically, $2 million would be used to develop
new biotechnology testing methods, analytical tests, and greater
quality assurance procedures, and $150,000 will be used to address
emerging sanitary and phytosanitary standards required by the WTO and
NAFTA. Under the Packers and Stockyards Programs, $5 million would be
used to: (1) develop models which could be used to verify the existence
of anti-competitive behavior; (2) expand the Rapid Response Teams used
to investigate time-sensitive financial, trade, and anti-competitive
behavior issues; (3) examine the competitive structure of the poultry
industry; (4) establish a swine contract library, and (5) enhance civil
rights activities and establish an information staff. This funding will
allow GIPSA to promote competition and improve market performance,
which is vital to increasing confidence in the livestock and poultry
sectors. Legislation will again be proposed to charge user fees for
grain standardization activities and license fees for packers and
stockyards activities.
DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Departmental offices provide leadership, coordination and
support for all administrative and policy functions of the Department.
These offices are vital to USDA's success in providing effective
customer service and efficient program delivery. The 2001 budget
proposes targeted increases for USDA's central offices and management
functions to strengthen Departmentwide management oversight,
leadership, coordination, and administrative support in keeping with
the Department's Strategic Plan Management Initiatives to:
--Ensure that all customers and employees are treated fairly and
equitably, with dignity and respect;
--Create a unified system of information technology management;
--Improve customer service by streamlining and restructuring the
county offices; and
--Improve financial management and reporting.
The budget request reflects a continuing commitment to improving
civil rights enforcement throughout USDA. In recent years, the Congress
has provided funding for key civil rights initiatives in the
Department, which is greatly appreciated. This budget includes further
increases to ensure the achievement of the Department's civil rights
goals. For example, an increase of $1 million is included to enhance
the Department's capability to more efficiently and effectively resolve
workplace conflicts, including equal employment opportunity complaints,
through an expanded Alternative Dispute Resolution program that will be
jointly administered by the Office of Civil Rights and the Conflict
Prevention and Resolution Center. An increase of $7 million is included
for the Department's Socially Disadvantaged Farmers Outreach Program.
In 2000, this program was provided with an additional $5.2 million form
the Fund for Rural America. Authorized by Section 2501 of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, this program provides
grants to organizations to help increase socially disadvantaged
farmers' and ranchers' participation in USDA programs and to help
enhance the success of their operations by providing outreach and
technical assistance. The budget also includes $500,000 for a Small
Business Education and Development Pilot Program that will: (1)
demonstrate strategies for the growth and stability of small businesses
in rural America; (2) identify new markets for agricultural products of
small, limited-resource farmers; and (3) deliver educational and
technical resources to sustain economic growth and development.
The Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) provides policy
guidance, leadership, and coordination in USDA's information management
and technology investment activities. The budget includes an increase
of $6.6 million to implement a comprehensive USDA Cyber-Security
Program and $2 million to support electronic commerce and information
management and collection initiatives. The cyber-security program will
ensure that the Department's information technology (IT) systems are
protected from unlawful and malicious intrusions. Activities include
establishing a department-level IT risk management program to provide
means to identify vulnerabilities in USDA's information assets and
mitigate security risks; further the development of an information and
telecommunications security architecture; and conduct security
awareness and training programs to educate our employees about security
risks as well as their role in protecting USDA's information resources.
As USDA agencies increasingly provide customers access to programs and
services on the Internet, Department-wide electronic commerce
initiatives will facilitate the development of unified and more
resource efficient approaches to common issues such as electronic
signatures, information security, and rapidly evolving technical
standards. Information management and collection initiatives will also
provide a quick and easy way for customers to conduct business with the
Department, reduce customer reporting burdens, and help the Department
meet the requirements of the Government Paperwork and Elimination Act.
OCIO also has oversight of the Common Computing Environment (CCE)
that is part of the Service Center Modernization Initiative (SCMI). CCE
is a critical component of our plan to reengineer the Department in a
way that improves customer service while reducing the long-term costs
of providing those services. In recent years, the Department has
collocated field offices of the Farm Service Agency, Natural Resources
Conservation Service and Rural Development to create about 2,500 one-
stop USDA service centers. A key ingredient in providing seamless,
quality service at service centers is the replacement of these
agencies' separate, incompatible, and aging information technology
systems with a single, integrated, and modern information system. CCE
will allow these agencies to share common information, will reengineer
business processes to reduce the redundant requests, office visits, and
paperwork burden faced by customers participating in multiple programs,
and will save customers time and money by making Internet-based
services available. Significant progress on SCMI has already been
achieved. Business processes are being reengineered to streamline
administrative functions and improve program delivery; modern
telecommunications systems have been installed; and 30,000 computer
workstations are being deployed that can be used interchangeably among
the agencies. Significant efficiencies will be achieved when the
service centers are allowed to integrate their administrative
functions. A comprehensive Service Center Modernization Plan has
recently been completed and adopted by the Department. It lays out the
next steps and implementation timeframe for attaining the goal of one-
stop service for USDA customers at the county level.
Until such time as the CCE is fully operational, the service center
agencies will continue to rely on outmoded legacy computer systems,
many of which have been in place since the early 1980's. These systems
are becoming increasingly unreliable and are expensive to operate and
maintain, costing an estimated $250 million to operate in 1999. While
spending on existing legacy systems will be held to minimum levels,
there are operational and maintenance requirements of these systems
that must be met to provide ongoing customer service. It is just not
possible to finance the new CCE solely with funds diverted from the
legacy systems. Additional investments will be needed in the current
and upcoming years to reach the goal of bringing the CCE into full
operational status during 2002. Failure to develop a modern IT
infrastructure poses high risks for the continued ability of USDA to
meet its basic customer service responsibilities. Thus, consistent with
the Service Center Modernization Plan, this 2001 budget includes $75
million for IT investments under the Office of the Chief Information
Officer that will help achieve a fully operational common computing
environment during 2002. Additional funds from the Service Center
agencies' 2001 budgets will support the reengineering of business
processes, additional equipment for the common computing environment,
data acquisition to support geographic information systems, and
training needed to maximize the benefits of this technology.
USDA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) provides
overall direction and leadership in the development of modern financial
systems in the Department. The budget includes an increase of $1.5
million for a variety of strategies needed to strengthen the
Department's financial credibility and accountability. These efforts
include expanding departmental use of a new, integrated financial
management system (the Foundation Financial Information System) and
ensuring that all USDA agencies, including OCFO, develop and retain a
level of expertise to ensure the effective and efficient use of
financial management information. This funding will be used to
effectively implement legislative mandates such as the Government
Performance and Results Act, debt collection and cost accounting that
are aimed at promoting sound business practices and making valid and
reliable data and financial expertise available to support decision-
making processes, and to help USDA achieve a clean audit report on its
financial statements.
The budget also reflects a number of increases to strengthen
departmentwide management oversight and leadership in support of USDA
programs. An increase of $800,000 is proposed to support the
Department's Biobased Products and Bioenergy Coordination Council.
Funds will be used to develop standards for and a list of biobased
products as part of departmental and governmentwide initiatives to
further the use of environmentally preferable products.
The Department's Office of Communications (OC) plays a critical
role in disseminating information about USDA's programs to the public.
The budget includes increases of $0.9 million to enable OC to utilize
new technology to reach audiences in a more timely and effective
manner, and to lead departmentwide communications efforts to reach
underserved populations.
Legal oversight, counsel, and support for the Department's programs
is provided by the Office of the General Counsel (OGC). The budget
provides an additional $3.7 million to strengthen OGC's ability to
provide timely response to increasing requests for legal assistance
from the program agencies, especially in the areas of civil rights,
natural resources, food safety, concentration, and general law. Funds
are also included to provide IT improvements to further enhance the
efficiency of the office.
The National Appeals Division is responsible for all administrative
appeals of adverse decisions issued by certain agencies within the
Department and conducts administrative hearings in a fair and impartial
manner. The 2001 budget includes an increase of almost $900,000 to
maintain current activities while providing training to its employees
that will enhance their required knowledge and skills regarding
adjudication procedures and USDA regulations and policies.
The Chief Economist advises the Secretary on policies and programs
related to U.S. agriculture and rural areas, provides objective
analysis on the impacts of policy options on the agricultural and rural
economy, and participates in planning and developing programs to
improve the Department's forecasts, projections, and policy analysis
capabilities, including the collection and dissemination of weather
data to the agricultural community. The budget includes an increase of
$400,000 to continue the modernization of USDA's weather and economic
data systems, including the installation of a second automated weather
station to better cover prime agricultural areas and Internet-based
dissemination of economic and weather data. An increase of $1 million
is requested to provide analysis and evaluation needed to support the
Department's and governmentwide efforts to use more biomass energy and
biobased industrial feedstocks and products. This proposal includes
$700,000 to address increasing concern about the effects of
agricultural operations on the environment and food safety by enhancing
USDA's ability to assess these risks and reduce them.
The budget also includes funding to continue ongoing implementation
of the USDA Washington Area Strategic Space Plan, which seeks to reduce
facilities' costs by moving headquarters employees into efficient and
safe government-owned workspace. In 2001, the Department is requesting
an increase of $46 million for:
--required increases in rental payments to GSA;
--renovation of the nearly 70-year old South Building to address
serious fire and health hazards and electrical malfunctions;
--maintaining and operating our buildings; and
--addressing the increasing threats of terrorism and intrusion to
USDA's employees and systems.
The Hazardous Materials Management Program provides for
Departmental compliance with legislation requiring the cleanup of sites
and facilities contaminated by hazardous wastes and the responsible
management of hazardous materials. An increase of $14.4 million is
requested to accelerate investigative and cleanup activities in order
to protect public health and stay on track to meet the goal of cleaning
up all sites under our jurisdiction by 2045. Along with protecting
public health and the environment, funding will reduce the likelihood
of costly enforcement actions and lawsuits against the Department. It
also will contribute to a proactive effort to seek out and reach
agreements with outside parties responsible for contamination of sites
under USDA's jurisdiction. Getting these groups to pay their fair share
of cleanup efforts contributes significantly to ensuring activities in
this area are completed as quickly and comprehensively as possible.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducts and supervises
audits and investigations relating to programs and operations of the
Department, and as such, is the principal law enforcement provider in
the Department; reviews and makes recommendations on existing and
proposed legislation and regulations; and recommends policies and
activities to promote economy and efficiency and to prevent and detect
fraud and mismanagement in USDA operations. The request provides an
increase of $5.1 million to conduct additional audits aimed at ensuring
the safety of agricultural products and protecting the integrity of
USDA's information systems. The proposal will also support the
acquisition of specialized law enforcement equipment to enhance the
safety and security of OIG law enforcement activities, and increase
criminal investigations in USDA public integrity vulnerabilities.
That concludes my statement. I am looking forward to working
closely with the Committee on the 2001 budget so that we can better
serve those people who are in need of USDA programs and services.
Senator Cochran. I apologize for our obligation to have to
leave to vote. We will recess quickly and resume our questions.
Secretary Glickman. Okay.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
Secretary Glickman. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. The subcommittee will come to order.
SAFETY NET PROGRAM
Mr. Secretary, thank you for your patience. I understand
the budget proposal includes, for this next fiscal year, $5.8
billion out of this $11 billion safety net program that you
mentioned, and that a major component includes a payment limit
income assistance program.
You said that even with the proposed payment limit, only 2
percent of current recipients under the AMTA payment scheme
will be ineligible. And further, it is my understanding that an
individual that receives less than the $30,000 payment
limitation would have his supplemental payment reduced by the
amount of his AMTA payment.
The ad hoc emergency disaster assistance provided by the
Congress in the last 2 years has been offset from within the
spending caps established by the balance budget agreement. Is
this new $11 billion proposal submitted by the Administration
offset, or is it being taken from the budget surplus?
Secretary Glickman. Well, I would ask Mr. Dewhurst to
respond. It is not in the category of emergency spending. That,
I can tell you. So, it is part of the basic budget of the
government, and I suppose one could say it is paid for in the
context of the President's balanced budget proposal, but Mr.
Dewhurst may have a little more specific answer to that.
Mr. Dewhurst. Well, the Secretary is correct. The
President's budget has a section on mandatory proposals. It has
increases, it has decreases, and it has a balance at the end.
Our increases are in that table.
None of the offsets were in the Department of Agriculture.
They are in other places in government, but essentially we are
within a proposal that is a balanced proposal.
INELIGIBILITY OF CURRENT AMTA RECIPIENTS
Senator Cochran. Another concern I have is that your
suggestion that only 2 percent of current AMTA recipients would
be ineligible under this new program. I think just the opposite
is going to be true in my State. I think only 2 percent of the
producers are going to be eligible, and 98 percent are going to
be ineligible. I hope you will take another look at that.
Secretary Glickman. I wonder if, perhaps, Mr. Collins can
respond--I have not done a State-by-State analysis, but he can
tell you a little bit more than what I have mentioned.
Mr. Collins. I have not done a State-by-State analysis
either, but I could get you that data. I can only say that
based on the 1998 data that we report to the IRS for purposes
of issuing Form 1099's for tax purposes, only 2 percent of the
total number of recipients of payments receiving 1099's had
more than $30,000 and dependents in 1998.
That is the basis on which we say that 2 percent would,
right out of the box, be excluded nationally. It may be that a
disproportionate share of those are in your State, but I could
certainly check that.
Senator Cochran. Or even in the region. It seems to me that
there is a likelihood that you are going to have the payment
skewed toward the upper Midwest.
Not to be critical of that, Senator Kohl.
But I really think you are going to find, if you look at
this carefully, it is going to discriminate possibly against
the Southern Region, the Southern producers. I am suggesting
that s a possibility. It is a concern of mine. Have you done a
regional analysis of this?
Mr. Collins. I think that is true, that it will
disproportionately affect some crops, such as cotton and rice.
There tend to be higher payments associated with those crops
because they are high value crops.
Senator Cochran. Right. It costs more to produce the crops.
Mr. Collins. Correct.
Senator Cochran. Okay. Well, I am hopeful, before we rush
to embrace the Administration's proposal, we will look at some
of the details carefully. And I am confident that is what the
legislative committee will do.
Frankly, it will not be up to this committee to change the
law as you are suggesting to get to the point where
appropriated dollars would have to be made available to support
this program.
NEW CROPS ELIGIBLE FOR SUBSIDIES
Do you expect there would be an expansion of farm program
subsidies to new crops as well?
Secretary Glickman. Our proposal helps new crops, in two
ways. One is that conservation payments would be available to
all farmers, everywhere in the country.
So, the direct conservation payments to the farmers,
whether in Mississippi or anywhere else, would be on top of
AMTA. In addition, they would be available to every producer of
every type of crop. We still have to come up with legislative
language for this, but it will be a profound enhancement of the
current farm program.
In addition, as I mentioned before, our crop insurance
programs are going to be modified to ensure more participation
by producers of non-program crops. We are also developing of
new insurance programs to cover additional crops and to get rid
of the area-wide trigger that has limited assistance under the
non-insured assistance program.
NEW DELTA INITIATIVE
Senator Cochran. One other concern that I raised in my
opening statement is this new delta initiative. I am suspicious
that this is not going to do nearly as much as the President is
advertising that it will do. Can you tell us out of this $153
million proposal to create a new delta regional authority, how
this money is actually going to be spent?
Secretary Glickman. I would ask Mr. Dewhurst to, perhaps,
respond to that question.
Mr. Dewhurst. The honest answer to your question is: I do
not know. It is presented as proposed legislation in the
President's budget to be administered by an agency outside the
Department of Agriculture, and I am just not versed in what
that proposal is.
Senator Cochran. I had an opportunity to make comments
about the user fees. I am convinced that this is just not going
to be enacted by the legislative committee, and so the
expectation that we are going to impose what would amount to be
new taxes, over a half billion dollars in new taxes on
producers, processors and handlers of agriculture and food
products, is just not going to happen. I do not think Congress
is going to go along with that.
On the subject of the census, I understand that you have
granted a waiver----
Secretary Glickman. That is right.
Senator Cochran [continuing]. So that food stamps
recipients can be employed in the taking of the census, and I
commend you for getting that done. HUD has also made a similar
kind of waiver. Thank you.
It seems to me that if we have people involved in taking
the census, even if they are beneficiaries of food programs,
they are going to be from the community, and they are going to
be familiar with where people live and who people are, and we
will have a more accurate census.
And people who are being questioned by the census takers
are going to be more likely to respond to someone they know,
rather than somebody who is hired out of Washington to come
down there and try to check up on everybody, and where
everybody is, and get all the answers to these census data
forms.
I remember being chairman of that subcommittee one time. We
had hearings around the country, New York City and rural areas
of the country, and how we could actually ensure that a more
accurate census is being taken.
That was one of the suggestions that we kept hearing, ``Get
local people who are well known in the communities you are
trying to examine and review, and that is how you will end up
building confidence.'' And so, I think this is a very important
step, and thank you.
I have other questions, and I am going to defer to my
friends on the committee to ask questions, and then I will
return to continue my questioning.
Senator Kohl.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Glickman, your safety net plan will provide more
than $6 billion to support crops on top of AMTA payments and
loan deficiency payments they already receive.
DAIRY ASSISTANCE
I do not begrudge crop producers a meaningful safety net. I
encourage that. But I am dumbfounded that this Administration
has not proposed something more meaningful for dairy,
particularly in light of the disaster of the low milk prices
that your agency is predicting this year. Still, the Federal
Government has a record of what I consider to be destructive
dairy policies.
So, Mr. Secretary, what am I supposed to tell dairy farmers
in Wisconsin, or for that matter, across the country, to
explain this policy? Can I tell them that volatility in dairy
is not as devastating as it is for other commodities; or
perhaps should I tell them that when the pie was cut up, their
income simply was not as important to this Administration as
income for farmers of other commodities? Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Glickman. I am fully cognizant of the price and
volatility issues, but let me just talk about a couple of
things.
Number one, we have proposed extending price supports for 2
years. That is a cost of $300 million, and if that is not done,
prices could fall to levels way below where they currently are.
I also think it is important, in this context, to note what
we have already done. And a lot of what we have done is because
of what Congress has put in emergency bills. We raised class
one differentials in the upper Midwest.
When did we do that?
Mr. Collins. January 1st.
Secretary Glickman. January the 1st. We ran a $200 million
economic assistance program last year. We will run a $125
million program for dairy farmers again this year. We will
scale up the dairy options pilot program. We will run the
DEIP--dairy export incentive program--at its maximum.
Most dairy farmers will benefit from crop programs. Most,
if not virtually all dairy farmers produce row crops, and will
benefit from that as well. And the conservation proposals and
the EQIP program will have a significant impact on dairy
producers.
Now, is that enough? It probably is not enough, and we are
going to have to work with you on seeing if there are other
things that we can do. And the fact is, as you know, I did try
last year to make changes in the milk marketing order system.
For a lot of different reasons, it was not successful.
But I do want you to know that we are trying to deal with
this in a multi-disciplinary approach, from the conservation
approach, from the risk management approach, from the export
approach, as well as for direct payments. We just have to work
with you to kind of continue going down this road.
Senator Kohl. So you are prepared to consider some
alterations?
Secretary Glickman. Well, our proposals were the initial
proposals based upon our budget. But, you know, I am a student
of the legislative process. We are going to have to work with
you, and I fully recognize there are going to be some changes
in these proposals. If history is any guide, there will be.
We presented an intellectual framework for what the
emergency package ought to look like. But do I expect that
Congress, working with us, will make some changes? Of course.
REGIONAL DAIRY COMPACTS
Senator Kohl. Mr. Secretary, in addition to low milk
prices, I am very concerned about the impacts, as you know, of
regional dairy compacts. On dairy farmers in the middle west,
particularly, of course, Wisconsin. As you know the concerns of
the upper Midwest dairy farmers are based on the distortion
that such compacts create and the inevitable increase in milk
production that will result from these compacts. Ultimately
these policies will reduce prices for all farmers outside the
pricing cartel.
Studies of the impact of the Northeast Dairy Compact, some
of which are actually commissioned by the Compact Commission
itself, show: One, that consumers are paying higher milk prices
in that area; two, that not all nutrition programs are being
reimbursed for their increased cost under the program; three,
that when effective, the compact prices encouraged excess
production of manufactured dairy products; and four, that the
compact does not prevent the loss of family farms in the
Northeast.
Earlier this week, Mr. Collins reviewed, for the
Agriculture Committee, some of the economic studies at the
University of Wisconsin, Vermont, Missouri, and Massachusetts,
the impact of the Northeast Dairy Compact.
And, Mr. Collins, would you like to review those studies
and conclusions to this committee? Will you just spend a minute
or two or three telling us what the major----
Mr. Collins. I would just probably repeat what you just
said, Mr. Kohl. The studies generally show that when the over-
order price under the compact exceeds what would have been the
price under federal orders, consumers in New England have paid
a higher price than they otherwise would have paid.
The University of Vermont study shows that in the first 12
months after the compact was in effect, milk production
increased 1 percent or 45 million pounds in the compact area,
due to the compact itself. So, there was an increase in milk
production.
The third point you made was the issue related to
assistance provided to food and nutrition programs. The compact
commission has provided compensation for the WIC program, and
has started doing it for the school lunch program. The food
stamp program recipients, of course, will pay higher milk
prices without being compensated.
There have been some studies to show that the compensation
has not been perfect. That is, in Massachusetts, WIC recipients
have received compensation to offset their higher milk costs,
but this is not true in the State of Connecticut, for example.
Senator Kohl. Mr. Secretary, any justification for setting
up a price fixing cartel arrangement? Any justification,
whatsoever, Mr. Secretary? Is there any justification for it,
Mr. Secretary, in the United States of America?
Secretary Glickman. Nobody wants to set up a price fixing
cartel that is violating anti-trust laws or anything else.
But let me comment on this. As you know, we proposed milk
marketing order reform, under the Congressional statute. When
that reform became effective, the Northeast Dairy Compact would
end. That may have been one of the reasons why we could not get
milk market order reform because there were a lot of folks who
did not want the Compact to end.
We have not taken a formal Administration position on
compacts. However, I had stated publicly that compacts do raise
some of the concerns that Mr. Collins has talked about.
If you were going to go down that road, you would have to
protect against other parts of the country being affected by
excessive milk supply, because that could affect dairy farmers
by getting lower prices in those areas. It could have an effect
on our programs for the poor.
Also, I have said that if you were going to have compacts,
you would need to give authority to the Secretary to revoke the
compact if, in fact, these terrible things happened.
Now, I have not addressed absolutely whether we would
approve the compact or not approve it, because I do not know
whether you could work out any language that could deal with
some of the problems that you and Mr. Collins have raised. I do
not know if that is possible yet.
REGIONAL DAIRY COMPACTS
Senator Kohl. Price fixing arrangements, whether they are
in the milk industry or any other industry, whether it is in
commodities or manufactured products, price fixing arrangements
that prevent producers or manufacturers from selling their
products in all 50 States, the basis of the American economy,
price fixing arrangements.
Any way that you can support them, whether it is milk or
any other commodity or any other manufactured product--can you
support that? I asked you another question.
In terms of the larger issue that I am raising, and in
terms of your legacy, our legacy, the American economy, what
makes it great, are you not willing to stand up and say, ``I do
not know if I will win and I do not know if I will lose, but I
will fight them to my last breath because price fixing cartels
are not consistent with the way the American economy has
worked''?
Secretary Glickman. Senator Kohl, I hope that I showed last
year that I was willing to weigh in. I am not afraid of the
political fallout of taking a position which, apparently, a
majority of the Congress did not agree with me on.
The fact is, even under a compact, you can move milk around
in interstate commerce. A compact will affect the volume of
milk that is moved, and perhaps the price as well. It also may
affect lower income citizens.
As a general proposition, all products should flow in
interstate commerce as freely as possible. I agree with that.
Senator Kohl. And they do.
Secretary Glickman. But I am just saying that I think it
would have been better if we would have adopted the milk
marketing order reform that we had proposed, so that we would
not have to continue to deal with this issue.
There are problems with compacts. I have said that before.
I think that if Congress were to decide to go ahead with
compacts, they would have to address our concerns. I have said
that before. Those concerns relate to effects on other parts of
the country. They relate to pricing in other parts of the
country. They relate to how the poor would be dealt with.
Senator Kohl. Is there some idea as to how we are going to
deal with apparent effort on the part of other regions to set
up their compacts? That is the way these things work. And it is
going to work. It is expected to work. I have heard from
members of this committee that compacts are going to be
proposed for other regions this year. Are you all prepared to
take a position?
Secretary Glickman. We will, I am sure, take a position
when the legislation is at a ripe point where we think we need
to do that. I am willing to work with you and the other members
on our concerns. Obviously we have serious concerns about it. I
have raised that. Mr. Collins has raised it.
But I am not willing, at this stage, to give you a formal
position, because I do not have a piece of specific legislation
to deal with right now.
Senator Kohl. Mr. Collins, do you have a comment on that?
Mr. Collins. No, sir.
Senator Kohl. Really? I mean this whole thing is--what is
the logic in the year 2000 of paying farmers, the further away
they get from Wisconsin, more for their product?
Secretary Glickman. I do not disagree with you on that
point.
Senator Kohl. What is going on here? Is there no justice?
Is it just ``might makes right''? Is that all it is about? I've
worked here for 12 years and I have learned, and I wish I had
not learned, that that is all we are talking about here--
``might makes right.'' If you got the votes and you have a
Federal court decision in your favor, you can do anything.
Is that the way it works? Why has not the Administration,
even though maybe this is a small issue, I recognize that, but
why is not the Administration taking a stronger position on
this? There is no logic to defend the present milk pricing
system, just ``might makes right.''
Secretary Glickman. Well, Senator, I would have to say
this: There are an many of parts of agriculture that are
hurting very much right now, and people are looking for
alternative ways to address the problems, the low prices, that
producers are getting everywhere.
Now, we do know that in this particular area, you have a
situation of regional conflicts, which you do not tend to have
in other areas of agriculture. Cotton pricing tends not to be
parochially regional, whereas dairy does get to be regional.
But I think that the reason why this issue has been so
difficult to resolve is because those in Congress from farm
States are looking for ways to help their producers any way
they can. You know, we have to ultimately take a position based
upon what we think is the right thing to do, and we will. But
at this stage, I think it is premature for us to tell you
absolutely one way or the other which way we would go.
REGIONAL DAIRY COMPACTS
Senator Kohl. Well, you know, ultimately I am hoping that
we can work constructively again this year on this issue, both
in terms of the pricing policy and the compacts, because I do
not hear any defense for them except that that is just the way
it is. And I appreciate that, and I know you did not create it,
and it is not easy to change it, but it is certainly worth the
effort.
There is no justification. I defy Senator Cochran or
anybody else to tell me why the further away you get from
Wisconsin, the more you should get for your milk, while we are
the State with the most milk producers in the nation. Dairy is
Wisconsin's leading industry, and we are not asking for any
advantages, we just do not want to have any disadvantages. It
does not make any sense.
Senator Cochran. You pay your quarterback from Mississippi
a lot more than you pay any other quarterback.
Senator Kohl. Right.
Senator Cochran. For Green Bay.
Senator Kohl. Right.
FOOD STAMP PROGRAM
Anyway, just another question: Mr. Secretary, this
subcommittee provides more spending for nutrition than any
other USDA programs. However, over the past few years we have
seen dramatic declines in spending for the food stamp program.
In fact, we now learn that over $1 billion of food stamp
funds are estimated to lapse at the end of this fiscal year,
and despite the economy and the decline in food stamps
spending, we continue to hear reports of increased demand at
food banks and in soup kitchens.
According to USDA, over 14 million children do not have
food to meet their basic needs and they are going hungry. In
Wisconsin, one paper, the Green Bay News Chronicle, has
reported extensively on the growing hunger problem in that
region. What has USDA been doing, and what have you learned
about this phenomena, what actions can the subcommittee take to
start turning these numbers around, especially the disturbing
trend of growing child hunger?
Secretary Glickman. Well, one thing we have done is we have
asked for full funding for the food stamp program in our
budget. We also want to take into account a large number of
people that we think ought to be participating in the program
that are not.
This is a very serious problem. The rate of reduction in
participation in the food stamp program, is much greater than
the rate of reduction in our poverty rates. We have an awful
lot of people we believe are not on the food stamp program that
are eligible. There may be many reasons why.
One reason may be confusion about the welfare reform law an
its impact on other laws, the TANF law, AFDC, and Medicaid.
People are no longer eligible in certain circumstances for the
State run programs, but food stamps is still an entitlement
program with federally set eligibility criteria, and a lot of
people, I think, thought if they were off one program they were
ineligible for food stamps, which is often not the case.
So, we have an obligation to do a much more intensive
outreach and education effort, both in English as well as
Spanish and other foreign languages, if necessary, to let
people know what they are eligible for. We are encouraging the
States to do the same thing, because they basically run the
programs as well.
But this is a phenomenon that is out there. The fact is
that the differential between the haves and the have nots in
many parts of this country is growing.
The Food Stamp program is one that most people are on for a
very short period of time. It is our largest food assistance
program, and over half of the recipients are children. It is a
program where the rules have been changed through legislation
to encourage people to go to work. Outreach and education are
needed, however to ensure that low income working families know
that they remain eligible for food stamps.
We also are proposing some legislative changes. The
President has proposed making some legal aliens, some people
who were cut off before, eligible. We have also proposed to
ease the rules on automobile ownership, because it has been the
same for almost 20, 25 years. We want to encourage more people
to own a car. So, if you have a car, you can at least go to
work, and car ownership has been disqualifying people from
being on food stamps for some time.
This is a very serious problem. We are working with the
activists and the hunger groups and the non-profit community,
the church communities, to try to deal with this issue. But the
law does allow people with eligibility to participate in the
program, and there are an awful lot of people who are not doing
it.
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Senator Kohl. Okay. One last question. I am a strong
supporter of USDA conservation programs and all conservation
activities in general. In fact, I am very proud that Wisconsin
takes credit as the birthplace of today's conservation
movement. In current law, and in the farm safety net initiative
you propose, many of the major conservation programs are funded
directly out of the Commodity Credit Corporation.
The 1996 farm bill set in place limited funds made
available through Section 11 of the CCC charter act, which has
had the result of making it difficult for USDA to carry out
these important programs.
Last year, I, along with Senator Cochran, provided you some
relief in order to make funds available in fiscal year 1999 and
2000, to carry out programs like the Wetlands Reserve Program
and the Conservation Reserve Program, notwithstanding the so
called Section 11 cap.
SECTION 11 CAP
What action do you plan to take in working with the
authorizing committees to change the Section 11 cap problem and
what will be the effect in carrying conservation programs in
fiscal year 2000 if no action is taken?
Secretary Glickman. I would ask Deputy Secretary to
respond.
Mr. Rominger. It is true, Senator, that we are looking at a
shortfall in funds for technical assistance because of the
Section 11 cap, and so we are going to be asking the committee
for a supplemental to be able to cover that. If we do not get
the supplemental, there will be farmers out there who do not
get the assistance in developing their plans so they can
participate in the programs.
Senator Kohl. Do you have any other----
Mr. Dewhurst. No, I do not. But to be precisely correct,
the Administration is going to be asking, in the safety net
proposal, the authorizing committees to lift the cap, as
appropriate, to provide the necessary technical assistance.
If Congress were to take all the actions the Administration
recommended to create the Conservation Security Program and
expand the other mandatory conservation programs, without
expanding the cap, it would produce on the order of a $100
million shortage in technical assistance funds to support these
programs. So, increasing the cap is a very important part of
the conservation initiative of the Administration. Thank you.
Senator Kohl. No questions.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator. Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for coming up today. I am not going to take long. No
good deed shall go unpunished, right?
Senator Cochran. That is right.
Senator Burns. We can look at the overall budget and there
are some things we are just tickled to death with, and other
areas we do not like so much, which means that if we had one
foot in the hot oven and one foot in a bucket of ice water, we
ought to feel pretty good. But we do not.
EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
The area of EEP, I would like to see some kind of reform
made there, so that we can use that tool effectively, and the
right people get the help in their exports. And I know you have
done a lot of work in that line, and I would like to work with
you on reform of EEP and the initial thrust.
I was quite disappointed in the Department of Agriculture
when Frito Lay made its announcement that it was not going to
use any of the enhanced products, genetically enhanced
products. And I did not hear anything from the USDA, not one
word. And yet, my good friend from Missouri has done a lot of
work as far as building a scientific case why this should be.
LAND ACQUISITION
And I also want to take note of another area of which
Senator Stevens brought up, is land acquisition. It is the
United States Department of Agriculture. It is not the United
States Department of Acquisition. And because the government
has got too damn much land now.
They cannot even manage what they have got, and so I would
take a good strong look at that and even though it may come all
fuzzy and warm and green and all that. It is really hurting
some of our communities on this land acquisition, because we
are just very, very concerned about that.
And in our area, are we making the best use of rural
utilities--and I appreciate your help on the RUS and those
areas. That is very good. But those are areas that we will be
looking at. Our research, we are still losing plant breeders--
we are still losing people in facilities where we do our
research and development. As the population grows, demand for
food is going to be there, and this other stuff that we do.
CIVIL RIGHTS
And then the last area is in the area of civil rights. Let
us get that taken care of. Let us just not give it lip service,
because we have got several cases pending in Montana that we
really need to do something about that, Mr. Secretary, and we
get the feeling that that is being put on the back burner.
I know some of our Native Americans in Montana that have
really had a case, and that should be dealt with. And I want to
make sure those are the areas in which we will work with the
Chairman and work our way through. But those are areas that I
have quite a lot of concerns with and we will work with the
Chairman and try to allocate the funds where we think they will
be best used. But I would just ask you, and I would not mind
coming down and sitting down and talking to you about the civil
rights thing, because I think there is a way to handle that.
Secretary Glickman. This is not being put on the back
burner, I can assure you. It is a civil rights responsibility
of the Department. Of course, I have been to your office once.
We have talked about these cases.
Senator Burns. Yes.
Secretary Glickman. I know that they have been very
troublesome, both for us as well as for you.
Senator Burns. Yes.
Secretary Glickman. As well as for the applicants, and
maybe it is not a bad idea to come down to talk specifically
about them again.
Senator Burns. I would like to do that, and I would like to
work with you in that area. And again, I would tell you, there
has never been a time like this, I know why the concerns of
Senator Kohl.
Our concerns in agriculture, Mr. Secretary, there is not
anything wrong on the farm except in the price when we compare
it to the grocery store, one way or the other. And I would tell
you, can we justify a cartel? You can if we use our leverage in
the market, agriculture today, as soon as that drill or that
planter hits the ground. We use our leverage in the market as
soon as we turn the bull with the cows. And some way or the
other, you have got to be an advocate for the producer. You
have got to be.
FRITO LAY
And just like in this Frito Lay thing, you should have
picked that up right now and ran with it and defended the
producers.
Secretary Glickman. Can I just comment on that point?
Senator Burns. Yes.
Secretary Glickman. Okay. Look, I suppose I could have
called the president of Frito Lay and asked why are you doing
this.
Senator Burns. I tried to.
Secretary Glickman. Okay.
Okay. But let me talk about what we have to do in this
context. You know, as much as I think that the decision of
Frito Lay may not have been the decision I would have made if I
had been the head of this company, because I do not like to see
farmers out there confused as to what they can plant and what
they can sell, the fact of the matter is that they are
responding to consumer pressures. Right or wrong, they are
responding to them.
So, what do we have to do at USDA? The most important thing
we can do is to give people the confidence, consumers the
confidence that these products are safe. I cannot tell Frito
Lay to do anything. The president of Frito Lay would laugh in
my face if the government tried to tell him what to do.
But what we have done on the GMO issue is the following:
Number one is that I appointed this 36, 37 member biotech
advisory committee composed of people who can help us deal with
a lot of the tough regulatory issues. I have had the National
Academy of Science peer-review our approval process in order to
make sure that the public has confidence. Most of this is in
the FDA's jurisdiction any way in terms of food products. Frito
Lay produces food products so I cannot tell them exactly what
to do.
If people have confidence their food is safe, if they think
it is on the level, they will buy it, and a lot of the hysteria
will go away, and that is the most important thing.
Senator Burns. Well, I would agree to allow that, but I
noticed also in your food safety, in here we have got a little
bit of a cutback and I think the Chairman noticed that. And I
will point that out--we will talk about that later on. And I
got another appointment.
Senator Cochran. All right.
Senator Burns. I thank the Chairman for his courtesy, and I
thank you for coming.
Senator Cochran. Senator Feinstein.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I know you have had a hard time personally
with loss of members of your family, and I want to extend my
condolences. And I do not want to give you a bad time, but I
have to give you a bad time.
Secretary Glickman. I can separate the personal from the
professional.
Senator Feinstein. This is not a good budget for
California, and I am going to try to take a little bit of time,
with the Chair's indulgence, to tell you why. The budget does
provide enough dollars with respect to pest exclusion.
INVASIVE SPECIES
In the last 6 months alone, California has had six
quarantines. Let me tick them off to you; Oriental fruit fly
eradication quarantine, a 9 square mile area, Burbank;
September 2nd, pink hibiscus mealy bug, Imperial County;
September 3rd, oriental fruit fly eradication, 9 square miles,
City of Westchester; September 17th, fruit fly eradication, 11
square mile area, City of Pico Rivera; November 19th, Mexican
fruit fly quarantine in 72 square mile area of Fallbrook,
California. And I want to talk about that in a moment--January
13th, 2000, melon fruit fly quarantine in a 75 mile area of Los
Angeles County.
In addition, California's $1 billion nursery industry is
threatened by red imported fire ants. And the $2.8 billion
grape industry faces a complete destruction due to an
infestation of the glassy wind sharp shooter for which there is
no treatment. I really want you to hear this.
Secretary Glickman. Yes. Okay.
Senator Feinstein. Let me talk for a moment about staffing
on the border.
Secretary Glickman. Yes.
USDA UNDERSTAFFED INSPECTORS
Senator Feinstein. California's land, air and seaports are
understaffed. That is clearly reflected in the rates of
infections that are occurring at these ports of entry. In 1998,
more than 60,000 foreign aircraft landed at California's six
major international airports. Fewer than half were inspected by
USDA officials.
Of the nearly 10,000 foreign vessels that arrived at
California ports, fewer than 3,000, less than a third, were
inspected. Most astonishing, of the more than 29 million
vehicles entering California from Mexico, fewer than 90,000
were inspected.
In San Diego, the USDA has only 49 agents and support
personnel to monitor three land ports, two airports and a
harbor.
Another problem is that the ports of entry are not always
staffed during hours of operation. At Otay Mesa, for example,
the USDA operates from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., even though the
ports are open a lot longer.
Sorry, you are going to have to wait for a minute while I
find the right page here.
Inspection hours are limited and shippers are known to slam
the border before the end of a shift to avoid rigorous
inspection. Virtually non-existent penalties for violators do
not deter the smuggling of illegal produce.
I happened to be sitting next to the United States Attorney
in San Diego about a week ago, and I said, how many cases have
you prosecuted in the last year or so for illegal smuggling of
produce? Guess what the number is? Zero. Guess what? USDA has
not sent a single case to the U.S. Attorney for prosecution,
and we now have almost a dozen quarantines. The penalty for
criminal violation of the smuggling laws is a $5,000 fine.
For an illegal shipper, this is simply a minor cost of
doing business, not an effective deterrent. I urge you to use
your authority to remedy this situation.
Now, let me talk for a moment about this latest Fallbrook
quarantine. The Fallbrook quarantine, if I can find the right
notes again, as I said is 72 square miles. It involves 1,470
growers and 20 specialty crops.
Now, where is the rub? These farmers were encouraged by
your department to grow these specialty crops. They thought to
reduce the risk of exotic pest introduction no pre-or post-
harvest treatment was provided for any of these crops by USDA.
As a result of two fruit flies, 150 growers, among the
1,452 affected, are going to lose their entire harvest,
virtually everything, almost $3 million worth. And because they
are small, they face the real probability they are going to
lose their land and/or their homes as well.
I have met with your staff. I urge that some assistance be
provided. I outlined the sections of the code which would
enable this to be treated as an emergency. That the fact that
it was extraordinary because USDA had encouraged the growing of
these specialty crops, and I got nowhere. Zip, zero, nothing.
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that in the supplemental
appropriation, we could add something, because out of the
1,400, we estimate that there are 150 people that are going to
lose everything because their whole crop is on the ground. They
cannot touch it. They cannot put it in a lunch bag to go to
school. They cannot sell any portion of it, and so they are
effectively dead for this entire crop season. So, this is a
huge problem.
I have met with a number of your inspectors. They all tell
me that staffing is inadequate on the Mexican border, and I
have given you a list of the quarantines that is resulting from
inadequate inspection. And I think we are going to have a huge
problem, and you can very well see the wipe out of California
as an agricultural community unless we do something about it.
Now, the quarantine in Fallbrook in San Diego County has
resulted in six countries not accepting the produce from the
entire San Diego County and Riverside County as well. That is
the present situation today.
C&H SUGAR REFINERY
Now, let me go on because the distinguished senator and
colleague on my left is present, and I think he has an issue as
well. And that is the issue of the sugar program. As you know,
I first met with you in 1994 about the largest cane refinery in
the United States, C&H Sugar. I have written you 13 letters.
The refinery is 93 years old.
When I first met with you, it had over 1,000 employees. It
is now down to 500, and once again about to close its doors. It
is also the only source of employment, major employment, in
Crockett. It refines about 15 percent of the total cane
consumed in the United States. It requires an excess of 700,000
tons of raw cane sugar to meet its demand.
Hawaii is C&H's sole source for its domestic raw cane sugar
needs. But the cane industry has been in decline for over 10
years. So, C&H has been forced to cover over half its annual
consumption through imports, and the quota prevents it from
importing enough sugar. Higher restrictive import systems force
C&H to pay an inflated price for raw sugar from both domestic
and foreign suppliers.
Even more devastating, the quota limits the amount of sugar
available to the refinery. That is why they are down to 500
workers. Simply put, it cannot buy sugar to refine, and it has
been forced to close its doors.
In a letter to me, the CEO reports C&H was forced to close
November 8th to November 15th because it ran out of raw sugar.
The closing is extremely costly. Other competitor refineries,
Savannah and Domino, have had similar experiences. The
government imposed shortage is forcing up the market price for
raw sugar to levels that are bankrupting refiners.
The recent production capacity has resulted in a severe
downsizing of the work force. As recently as 1987, C&H employed
over 1,400 people. They are now down to just over 500 people.
Recently, as a short term solution, the USDA allowed C&H to
import an additional 100,000 tons and expanded the re-export
period from 90 days to 5 years. I was shocked to learn on
December 29th of this past year that your department reversed
its position and reduced the re-export period to 180 days. C&H
may now be forced to forfeit the bond posted for the sugar at a
cost of more than $20 million.
Frankly, according to C&H, the department's actions have
done far more damage than if you did nothing at all. And
according to Mr. Conselic had you not intervened, C&H would
have been forced to shut its doors, and that would have been
preferable to forfeiting its bond, which I am told could go up
to $40 million.
You have got to find a way to resolve this mess. And I
would say to the sugar beet states, you cannot prevent a
refiner from getting cane or beet or some sugar to be able to
refine. It is an unfair policy. And if I have to, I will do
everything I can on the floor. I will find a way to shut down
the entire sugar program. I have appealed to sugar senators. I
just get blank stares.
But can you carve something out so that C&H can at least
buy sugar at market prices to be able to refine and nobody
cares? It is a phenomenon.
So, the sugar policy of the United States Government is
going to drive the largest domestic refinery out of business. I
have no doubt that that is going to happen. And that is a
flawed policy. But we have got--these are the two big problems.
Secretary Glickman. Okay.
EXOTIC PEST INFESTATION
Senator Feinstein. One is a huge exotic pest infestation
that has resulted in nine quarantines, two of them large now.
And two pests that will wipe out, one, the grape industry and
the other, the entire nursery industry, unless something is
done with it. As you know, you have got money in the budget.
Three-quarters of it is earmarked and it is earmarked to states
other than California. But we have a huge problem. Could you
respond to this?
Secretary Glickman. Yes, I will try to. Thank you. First of
all, let me tell you--increasing penalties for violating our
regulation on importation of pest-laden fruit has not passed
the Congress. One of the problems is if you send a case over to
the U.S. Attorney it may not be prosecuted if it is small and
only a misdemeanor. We need to get the penalties up.
Senator Feinstein. This U.S. Attorney will prosecute.
Secretary Glickman. Okay. Well, I am just telling you that
a bill is in the Congress, and if you raise the penalties, the
incentives will follow and it will make it a lot more
attractive to prosecute everywhere. We will work with you on
that legislation. I am told that, my staff has met with you.
Where they came back and told me about the meeting, and I asked
them why are we not sending cases to the U.S. Attorney.
I would like to know from the U.S. Attorney what kind of
cases actually would be prosecuted. But if we can raise the
penalties, it would make it a lot more worthwhile for these
cases to be prosecuted.
Senator Feinstein. I would be happy to ask him to come
back, to sit down with you and discuss this.
Secretary Glickman. Yes. And I will tell you, I am going to
call the U.S. Attorney myself. I know the person.
Senator Feinstein. Please.
Secretary Glickman. I will talk to him and ask him what can
we do to get him the kind of cases that he might pick a couple
to prosecute to send the signal out there. I also will talk to
our Office of Inspector General on this as well.
On the budget, I understand what you are saying. Clearly as
we go into a more globalized trade situation, the entire
government of the United States has to do a better job of
inspection. In our budget, as you know, fruit fly exclusion and
detection has been increased from $25 million to this year to a
request of $55 million, over 100 percent increase for that
effort.
For the agriculture quarantine inspection we have asked for
a 15 percent increase, from $210 million to $240 million.
Senator Feinstein. May I stop you there?
Secretary Glickman. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. My staff tells me it is a just a shift
of accounts.
Secretary Glickman. Mr. Dewhurst.
Mr. Dewhurst. Well, we started with the med-fly which was
begun with emergency CCC money, but under our rules we can do
that for 2 years and then we have to budget for it and count it
against our targets. And we have done that.
Secretary Glickman. I would have liked to keep it as
emergency spending so that I would not have to count it but we
are not able to do it that way any longer.
Senator Feinstein. But is it net new money or is it a
shift?
Secretary Glickman. It is both. It is some net new money
and some shift. We will get you the specifics on it. For,
emerging plant pests, we have gone from $1.5 million in 1999 to
$29 million for 2001. We do have a responsibility to protect
animal and plant resources and we do not have enough people at
the border, you are correct.
Now, on the other issues, as you know, the basis of our
meeting, I sent Dr. Siddiqui who ran the Plant Protection
Activities for the California Department of Agriculture, to San
Diego where he had a meeting, I believe.
Senator Feinstein. Day before yesterday.
Secretary Glickman. Yes, the day before yesterday with us.
I think some of your staff were there.
Senator Feinstein. The Agriculture commissioner.
Secretary Glickman. The Agriculture commissioner and
others.
Senator Feinstein. Correct.
Secretary Glickman. Now, what I am told is that there are
two basic issues. One of the issues is the issue of
compensation. That is, does the government have a
responsibility to compensate these producers when there is a
quarantine.
Senator Feinstein. And when you encourage them to grow the
crops in the first place.
Secretary Glickman. Okay. In any event, we, on occasion,
have provided compensation. We did it for Karnel bundt in
wheat. Some of that wheat was in California. We are now looking
closely at the case of plum pox in Pennsylvania.
CITRUS CANKER
Senator Cochran. Citrus canker.
Secretary Glickman. Yes, citrus canker. We have done it
when the authorities asked us. Even then there were some cost
share between the State and the Federal Government. I do not
think the Governor from the State of California has declared an
emergency or asked us to participate in the funding.
Senator Feinstein. He has not.
Secretary Glickman. But that would obviously be helpful.
Senator Feinstein. Right.
Secretary Glickman. In addition to that----
Senator Feinstein. If the Governor declares an emergency,
will you then help?
Secretary Glickman. It would make it a lot easier for us to
do that. I have to go back and talk to my folks, but if the
State declares an emergency, it was a situation where we were
able to participate, such as citrus canker, we would consider
providing cost share money on some compensation. So, that would
make a big difference.
Now, the other thing is we have a lot of quarantines every
year. The policy is the government cannot compensate every
producer for every quarantine for every purpose. Now, what you
are telling me is we may have contributed or caused a specific
type of production.
Therefore, there may be some responsibility. Maybe not
legal responsibility, but if nothing else, moral
responsibility. I have instructed our people to go back and
take a look at that as a result of the meeting a couple of days
ago. So, we will do that.
Senator Feinstein. And the border staffing?
Secretary Glickman. Well, the border staffing is a function
of money, and some of this money will go for additional
staffing. I cannot tell you how much. We may need to work with
you, perhaps, to augment these numbers a little bit.
SHORTAGE OF USDA INSPECTORS
Senator Feinstein. Let me tell you what I am told by the
Deputy Ag Commissioner of San Diego County. That your people
work very hard, but they are completely overwhelmed, and they
cannot keep up with it. And like with drugs, those who smuggle
get very sophisticated. And when they go off duty and the port
is open for 2 more hours, they just pour across.
Secretary Glickman. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. Now, the avocado growers told me that
they got one smuggled avocado shipment because they thought the
pits were narcotics. But, if it is an infestation, they do not
get them.
Secretary Glickman. Well, I do think then, when we are
trying to encourage globalization of agriculture, we have a
special responsibility to protect American producers and to do
the adequate amount of inspections. I agree with you, we do not
have enough inspectors on the borders.
Whether the budgeted amounts are enough or not, I do think
it requires a very high priority from our government in all
aspects, whether it is in California, Arizona, Texas, Florida
or the Canadian border. We will continue to look at the
compensation issue. This is on my plate now. I want you to know
that.
SUGAR ISSUE
Senator Feinstein. All right. Good. Sugar?
Secretary Glickman. Now, on the sugar thing, I might ask
Under Secretary Shumaker to respond to you. I would let him go
first and I will respond.
Mr. Shumaker. You want to go first?
Secretary Glickman. No, you go first.
Mr. Shumaker. Senator, sugar, as you know, is an issue
throughout the country and it is a very, very complex problem.
We administer the sugar program. Let me just take 1 minute on
where we are with the overall sugar issue, because I think some
members here may be very interested in it.
We had an increase in acreage in both cane and beets in
recent years. Good weather, combined with increased acreage
have meant record cane and beet sugar crops throughout the
country, including the major producing States such as North
Dakota, Louisiana, Florida and others.
So, we have this increased domestic production and
increased imports of sugar products which are outside the sugar
tariff rate quotas. These are the key factors in the question
of the low domestic prices. So, what have we done?
We are working, particularly, on non-recourse loans. They
are now available to domestic producers of sugar cane and sugar
beets. Many of the processors are taking advantage of these
loans, which in turn benefit the producers that sell to these
processors. Apart from these loans, there are not many other
provisions under the current sugar legislation.
Part of the problem is, of course, Hawaii. I have been to
Hawaii several times and it has reduced substantially its sugar
production for a variety of reasons and that has really
affected C&H over time. So, the Hawaiian diminution of sugar
production has really affected that one sugar refining plant in
California.
Thats why we have the problem, and I have to be honest with
you, there was some unfortunate set of circumstances in the way
we handled the TRQ and its impact on C&H. We provided a waiver
and allowed them to import raw outside the TRQ at a time when
there is excess domestic sugar on the market.
We have since initiated, I think my staff has worked and
kept you fully informed, in an effort to mitigate some of the
negative effects which you have outlined today that this
original waiver has had on the sugar program overall. We are
trying to mitigate the effects on C&H. Obviously we have not
been as helpful as you would have liked us to have been.
Senator Feinstein. What about requiring that they forfeit
their bond?
Mr. Shumaker. Well, I do not have exact information on this
question. I will get back to you on that bond issue, because I
have not been formally briefed on that. But we are trying to
mitigate the effect on C&H and at the same time, trying to see
that there are no unfortunate circumstances if that waiver was
provided on the rest of our sugar industry.
Secretary Glickman. If I may talk for a minute. I must tell
you, not that I agree with you on everything, but if we put a
company in jeopardy because we made a mistake at the
Department, that is inexcusable. I am going to get to the
bottom of this matter.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Secretary Glickman. This is inexcusable, and it is one of
the things I used to get frustrated with when I was in
Congress. You just can say here, well, it may have been because
of the tariff rate quota. It is kind of like saying it was the
law, when you try to explain what you did. We have got to
somehow make good on this.
I do not know how we are going to do it, and that is very
troubling to me. I promise you that I will see what I can do,
because it is not an excuse that some employee made a decision
and it was not in conformance with what we are supposed to be
doing.
Senator Feinstein. Right.
SUGAR TARIFF RATE QUOTA
Secretary Glickman. This company was mislead and went out
and did certain things based upon that and we have an
obligation to do what we can to deal with it. I would have to
tell you domestic production of sugar has gone from 7.3 million
tons in 1995 to 8.8 million tons last year, a significant
increase in production. Because of the TRQ and the way that we
have to administer it under the law, imports have gone from 2.2
million down to 1.2 million, largely as a result of the
dramatic increase in production of domestic sugar.
So, you and others have called me about how to try to deal
with this problem in the most sensible way that we possibly
can. But the underlying problem is domestic production is going
up very significantly.
Therefore, the administration of the TRQ means imports are
coming down rather significantly. I gather C&H probably used to
get a lot of its sugar from Hawaii, but now they having to rely
on importing their sugar.
Senator Feinstein. They were, yes. They were limited. And
you see, the problem is they are not allowed to buy sugar.
Remember we talked about this? They cannot bring sugar in, as I
recall. They cannot import it. Now, that is ridiculous. I mean,
this a free market. Why should not a huge refiner be able to
import it?
Secretary Glickman. There is a limitation under the tariff
rate quota. I am not telling you it all makes a lot of sense.
All I can tell you is that I understand your frustration with
respect to this firm who is employing people and, trying to buy
sugar. But I am going to get to the bottom of it. It is
unacceptable as far as I am concerned.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Senator Cochran. Senator Dorgan.
SUGAR PROGRAM
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I respect the statement of
the Senator from California. She has a problem and has to
address that and resolve it. I know she will not expect anyone
to apologize for a sugar program that works for sugar producers
or for family farmers in this country who are raising beets,
for example. This is one program that has worked over the years
among a range of programs that have largely failed in
agriculture. But, you know, she makes a point.
I appreciate the Secretary's response to her about dealing
with the C&H issue. But, we ought not believe that repealing
the sugar program is a thoughtful response. I know you are not
suggesting that.
Senator Feinstein. It is the only thing I can do.
Senator Dorgan. Well, but I do not think----
Senator Feinstein. I have tried since 1994.
Senator Dorgan. With all due respect, I do not think you
can do that either.
Senator Feinstein. Just to get adequate sugar.
Senator Dorgan. I mean, I do not think you are able to
repeal the sugar program, nor should you be able to. We should
solve your problem, but do so without ravaging family farmers.
Senator Feinstein. That is right. That is all I want.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Secretary, I waited because I wanted to
ask you a couple of questions about something that is often
more discussed in the agriculture committee, the authorizing
committee. But the appropriations in the budget really reflect
the need for funds that come from farm policy.
You are now proposing additional money with respect to a
counter cyclical program. My assumption is that that reflects
your belief that you have previously stated, that the farm
program should be significantly changed. That is the statement
you have made?
Secretary Glickman. That is correct. Let me discuss with
you the urgency of that.
CHANGE CURRENT FARM PROGRAM
Senator Dorgan. Some of us believe that rather than wait
for 2002, that we ought to change the underlying farm program
this year. We are going to attempt to make the changes to the
farm program to make it counter cyclical this year. How do you
feel about that? Would you support that? Do you think there is
an urgent need to change the farm program?
Secretary Glickman. First of all let me say, I think the
1996 farm bill has had major radical changes in the last 2
years, because the Congress had to appropriate more money in
emergency spending on top of the basic AMTA-payments.
Senator Dorgan. But that is not the farm program itself.
Secretary Glickman. No. But what I am saying is that if the
farm program is has to have these additional direct payments,
the Congress has basically said the underlying farm program
does not work very well.
Congress has not made any authorizing structural changes in
the farm bill. The net impact intellectually does not work very
well. Now, what we would like to see is significant additional
revisions to that base farm program.
Knowing how difficult it sometimes is to actually get some
of this done, what we have proposed is this counter cyclical
program on top of the existing program. But we would be willing
to work with you on more fundamental structural changes in the
farm bill. That is, I think we have developed the intellectual
principle that we would like to see this program based on, and
that is a counter cyclical formula and not on straight lined
payments.
Senator Dorgan. Now, the chairman of the Agriculture
Committee likened the emergency aid in 1998 and 1999 to ad hoc
counter cyclical aid. My assumption is that almost no lender is
going to consider ad hoc cyclical aid as a part of a regular
farm program, and that, I think, underscores the need to change
the underlying farm bill itself or to, as you are suggesting,
add something to it that changes the nature of the safety net.
Secretary Glickman. If you cannot change the basic formula,
then I think you need a bridge to the new farm bill that gives
a signal to producers as to where we are going to be going.
Senator Dorgan. But let me ask you, do you think it
advisable to change the basic formula? Do you basically support
the efforts of those of us who think it is urgent we do so?
Secretary Glickman. I think it would be advisable to change
the basic structure of the current farm bill. I would add two
caveats. Number one is whether it is, in fact, something that
could be done. And number two, there are a lot of lenders and
farmers out there that have factored in these AMTA payments
into their debt repayments, and into their operating programs.
So, there is a possibility of creating some instability out
there unless you were to give them at least as much as they are
getting in the basic AMTA program.
Senator Dorgan. Your recommendation to fund something that
is counter cyclical in your budget also anticipates targeting.
Can you describe how that is different from AMTA? AMTA does not
target, is that correct?
Secretary Glickman. AMTA does not target. There is the
payment limitation.
Senator Dorgan. Right.
AMTA PROGRAM
Secretary Glickman. This program would have a more
restrictive payment limitation than the AMTA program does. It
is based on income losses, not just based upon a straight
payment, irrespective of what the market is doing.
Senator Dorgan. So, targeted to actual losses and also
targeted with respect to limitations?
Secretary Glickman. That is correct.
Senator Dorgan. And that differs from the AMTA payment in
that the AMTA payment may well go to people, not only that did
not have losses, but may go to people who did not produce
anything?
Secretary Glickman. That is correct.
Senator Dorgan. And one more attempt at this. There will be
a disagreement, I assume, in this Congress. Those of us who are
attempting to change the underlying farm bill as opposed to
just grafting some counter cyclical piece to it, because we
think it ought to be done now rather than later.
We think the year 2000 is important to do it, rather than
2002, only because history shows us that the current farm bill
does not provide counter cyclical support. It was not designed
to, nor will it help farmers when prices collapse, respond to
that price collapse. In light of that, is it your feeling that
it is a reasonable thing to do, to try to get an early start on
changing this farm bill rather than waiting until 2002?
Secretary Glickman. I would say a couple of things. Number
one is that AMTA payments are going to come down by about a
half billion dollars this year and a billion in 2001. So, you
are going to have some reduction in farm assistance even with
the 1996 farm bill. Unless it is made up some way, it will
result in more net income losses to farmers.
I think it is very reasonable to look at the underlying
structural nature of the 1996 farm bill, but I would say that
if you do not think you can do a fundamental re-write of the
legislation, then you try to at least set some principles for
interim legislation that will give some leadership to where you
are going to be going in the 2002 farm bill.
Two other points. The conservation piece cannot be ignored,
because for the first time we are going to make payments to
producers everywhere in the country, not just in the regions
that have been getting the farm program payments, for practices
of good conservation practices, and not cost share payments.
More and more I think in the future, you are going to see more
farm bills related to conservation as well as basic commodity
policy.
Senator Dorgan. I support a conservation element, too. But
I do not, for example, want to see someone saying, well, let us
just have CRP replace farming.
Secretary Glickman. Right.
Senator Dorgan. I want family farmers to be able to live
and operate the family farm and make a decent living. And those
of us who come from farm country have a real stake in seeing
that happen. And regrettably, as you have said, the AMTA
payments ratchet down this year.
Even if grain prices continue to soften, you have a farm
program that provides less income, even as prices collapse.
That is the reason it needs to be rewritten.
Secretary Glickman. Right.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Bond.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate being able to come back and pick up where we left
off. I know that you all are having a great time today. I am
sorry I have had to go to other hearings.
BIOTECHNOLOGY ACTIVITIES
But, Mr. Secretary, I did want to get into, and I am glad
we had the opportunity in the public forum, to talk more about
the biotechnology activities. Are you aware of any food hazard
that has resulted from utilizing the transgenic process? The
process as opposed to what comes out.
Secretary Glickman. I am not personally aware of anything.
I am aware that in the past, the FDA has looked at this issue
as it relates to hypoallergenic responses.
Senator Bond. That is correct. The product.
Secretary Glickman. Yes.
Senator Bond. The product when they try to incorporate a
Brazil nut and a soybean resulted in the potential of causing
an allergic reaction, and therefore, the Brazil nut was dropped
as an additive to soybeans. And that was the product. And I
think that we all agree that each product needs to be reviewed
on its own.
Secretary Glickman. Right.
Senator Bond. But the process itself should not cause any
harm, should it?
Secretary Glickman. I am not aware of any. I would say that
one of the things we are doing at USDA is to continue to
upgrade our approval process, because the big thing you have to
do is to give the public and consumers confidence that we are
doing everything we can. The process needs to be forward
thinking.
I mentioned the National Academy of Sciences is doing a
peer review of our approval process. I have created a biotech
advisory committee chaired by a former member of the House,
Dennis Eckart from Ohio, to basically keep a continuous
advisory eye on what we are doing.
As you know, the approval of foods themselves is a
responsibility of the FDA and the EPA has some responsibility.
But as long as we continue to do this kind of thing and give
the public confidence, I think this technology will and should
go forward.
Senator Bond. Well, and I mentioned to you, and I think I
have shared with your staff, I do not know if you have seen it,
but the letter that I took to Seattle signed by 500 scientists
from all walks, all across the country, saying that we have got
as good a process as science can develop through the EPA, the
USDA and the FDA.
And I agree with you that we need to continue to take--
actually, these are extraordinary methods. Dr. Martina
McGlouglin, the Director of Biotechnology at the University of
California, Davis, in her comments to the FDA said that she
believes that the regulatory oversight must be science and
safety based.
She says that suddenly altered products on our plates,
coming from biotechnology, have been put through more thorough
testing than any conventional food has ever been subjected to.
I guess that is a fair statement. There is no other--we have
never tested any other food products.
Secretary Glickman. Certainly in the recent period of time,
I think that is probably true and will continue to be true.
Senator Bond. And, you know, we agree that labeling of
foods ought to be based on science.
Secretary Glickman. I have said that if companies may find
it useful to engage in labeling, information labeling, it is
voluntary labeling. They have to make the decision to do that.
For the government to come in and mandate labeling is clearly
premature. We have not established a basis or thresholds for
it. We do not have the scientific basis to determine really
what is in the product from a commercial basis right now.
I would have to say this, I want to go back to this point
again, we have got to make sure that the consuming public, not
only here but around the world, have confidence that the food
supply is safe.
This morning, I went over and spoke to a group of consumers
from around the world. They are meeting on this very point. I
was trying to tell them that we have got a food safety system,
that while it is not perfect, it is by far and away the best in
the world.
Whether it is our food borne pathogen safety system or our
GMO review process, it is a science based system and it is on
the level. It is independent from industry.
The industry is not running this system, because that for
sure would make it kind of suspect. Because of that, I think
that the industry ought to take our lead and develop similar
systems.
BIOTECHNOLOGY ACTIVITIES
Senator Bond. We just need to get you a bigger megaphone
because I believe you are exactly right. That you have to have
the best science. I understand from the FDA that the FDA says
that the only reason to label a food if it is different,
significantly different or if there is a health concern, and
then the consumers have a right to know that.
But, if there is no safety issue, the companies can label a
product if they want to, but it has to be truthful. In other
words, if they label something as GMO free, then you could not
sell cheese, most of which is produced with chymosins that
are--chymosin that are genetically altered in my understanding.
You could not sell most of the cheese we have today.
Secretary Glickman. I tell you, one of the things we are
doing at USDA to address this, in something of an indirect way,
is to issue our rules on organic certification. As you know,
the Congress passed a law in 1990 that required us to issue
rules on how to certify organic products.
UNDER THE RULE
Organic foods can not contain GMOs. That is the result of
the rule making process. It does not mean the food is any
safer.
Senator Bond. Do they get to use BT and still it as an
organic?
Secretary Glickman. I do not want to prejudge everything
within the final rule.
Senator Bond. Cultural practice.
Secretary Glickman. Yes, as a cultural practice, they can
use BT. I do not want to go through all of it, but all I am
saying is that there is a group of people out there that want a
certain kind of food. But I have made it clear this is not a
safety issue.
Some people argue that a lot of the things we do with our
food actually improves the safety of food. But, you know, this
is an interesting issue. I have been working on this for about
9 months. It is causing a lot of havoc out there in the
countryside with farmers, as you know, not knowing what to
plant, where to sell their products. One of the reasons why we
are talking about doing an on farm storage program for
producers is so they have a little more control over the
marketing of their product than they did before.
When we come up with products that the consumer believes is
in their interest, nutritional things like the Vitamin A rice,
may be health related things, I don't think this thing is going
to turn overnight. But until such time as that happens, I think
there is still going to be a lot of controversy.
Senator Bond. I am very much concerned that this technology
is under such broad scale attack, if we do not have scientists
speaking out and knowledgeable government officials, like you,
speaking out to say, hey, we are using the best science, this
is another step in the continuum of development.
We have come many, many miles with hybrid corn and cross
breeding to get better food products from animals and from
crops, because we have fiddled with Mother Nature. And we have
come up with improved plants. This is another step. It is a
more precise step. But I think, and some of the opponents call
it ``a largely untested technology,'' would you agree with
that?
Secretary Glickman. I cannot agree--there is no new food
that is approved for use in this country, or no new seed that
is approved for use in this country, that is untested. Period.
I mean that is just wrong. Does that mean that we should just
rest on our laurels?
Senator Bond. No.
Secretary Glickman. Should we not help to produce better
systems? We clearly need to do that.
Senator Bond. Let me--I have written you a letter, and it
is very important that, I think, that we try to stop the spread
of ural sclerosis to other parts of the world, which are,
frankly, under attack from Europeans and others who want to
stop all genetically modified foods. I just came back from
Southeast Asia, and in Thailand and countries there, they want
to know what our regulatory process is.
They have some excellent scientists. Scientists who have
worked hand in glove with American scientists. They are working
on genetic engineering to get rid of the gemini virus in
tomatoes that causes the yellow leaf welt that destroys 95
percent of their crop. The papaya ring virus, are things that
can be dealt with by genetic engineering.
They want very much to have contact with the USDA and the
FDA, and I would urge you, if you have someone available who
can make a trip to Bangkok, to go over with them the process
that you go through so that they can assure their consumers. I
sent the letter in the last day or so.
Secretary Glickman. Okay. But we also have our agricultural
attache in Thailand. I do not know if you saw this person when
you were over there.
Senator Bond. Yes.
Secretary Glickman. Do we have one in Bangkok?
Staff. Yes.
Secretary Glickman. I will make sure they are aware of
this.
Senator Bond. Yes.
Secretary Glickman. We do have the programs and we will
work on it.
Senator Bond. They do not seem to believe the embassy or
visiting senators. They want to hear somebody from the USDA who
is involved in the regulatory process.
Secretary Glickman. I will make sure that Mr. Shumacher
follows up on this.
Senator Bond. Yes, if you would, please because we want to
make sure, because this part of the world is going to benefit
tremendously from genetically modified organisms. And we need
to work with them. And our Ambassador there, Bob--excuse me--
Ambassador Hechlinger is working very closely with them to
provide the resources.
Mr. Chairman, I probably have another 2\1/2\ hours of
questions, but I will submit them for the record, and I am sure
the Secretary would like to go to lunch, too. So, thank you
very much, sir, for accommodating me.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
I have a number of questions that I will submit as well.
One final question, though, of you, is about the recission
the Department elected to impose on the Title I Public Law 480
program under the budget resolution that we finally wound up
with. We had a 0.38 required recission and you singled that
program out. And I also notice that you have singled it out
again with a cut proposed in this budget request.
I am curious about the lack of support in the
Administration for Public Law 480, Title I. It is a very useful
tool in assisting developing countries with the potential of
becoming commercial markets for U.S. agricultural products at a
time when we are seeing barriers and difficulties in
international trade, like Senator Bond was talking about, and
others. It seems like a poor time to be targeting an export
promotion program for under funding and cutting and rescinding.
Secretary Glickman. Perhaps Mr. Dewhurst can respond first.
Mr. Dewhurst. Yes, sir. Well, the cut that we were required
to take added up to about $96 million in the Department in
discretionary money and the emergency money that Congress had
provided. It was simply not easy to find $96 million in
reductions. One of the things that happened, frankly, is that
we looked at areas where there were substantial carry over
balances or other ways we thought the impact of the cut could
be ameliorated.
In Title I, we had over $100 million in available funds
carried over from the prior fiscal year. So, when we worked
with the agency, $8 million of the $96 million was taken out of
Title I. It was done with the understanding that there were
these balances and the cut could be handled, at least for this
year, without a serious impact on the program.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Cochran. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, we appreciate
your patience with our committee. Thank you for your
cooperation.
Secretary Glickman. It was good working with you. Thank
you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
COMPUTER SECURITY
Question. Mr. Secretary, I notice that the budget for the National
Agricultural Statistics Service includes funds for the security
improvement of the agency's computer systems. With the recent news of
computer hackers breaking into computer systems of major national
companies and government agencies, how do you perceive the threat to
USDA computer systems? What would be the potential consequences of a
computer break-in at the Department? Is this not something that should
be dealt with by the Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the Department,
instead of dealing with these needs on an agency-by-agency basis?
Answer. Recent security break-ins in the private sector and
security problems at the Environmental Protection Agency make it clear
that no organization is safe from cyber-security attacks. We are
working to strengthen our cyber-security program, and have thus far
managed to repel efforts at intrusion without apparent damage.
USDA takes such threats seriously due to the market sensitivity of
many of our reports as well as the confidential information collected
by the National Agricultural Statistics Service from producers and
agribusinesses that is maintained on our information systems. The
information USDA manages affects the financial markets and the lives of
individuals. The National Finance Center processes payroll for 450
thousand federal employees and administers the Thrift Savings Plan for
over 2 million federal employees. Rural Development's loan portfolio
exceeds $100 billion. At the same time, USDA is increasingly using the
Internet to provide customers information about programs and services,
and will eventually use it to allow customers to conduct transactions
online. I do not want to speculate on the potential consequences of a
computer break-in at the Department, other than to say that USDA
clearly has significant resources that are at risk.
The Department's CIO is taking a holistic approach to strengthening
our cyber-security program. We have recently hired an Associate CIO for
Cyber-Security who is an expert in this area and who reports directly
to the CIO. His mission is to work with each USDA agency to improve
cyber-security while also strengthening security at the Departmental or
perimeter level. Given the interconnectedness of the Department's
networks, and the common issues that all agencies face, we are
strengthening our corporate approach to security while also continuing
to identify and address specific weaknesses at the agency level.
Individual agencies such as NASS have identified immediate needs based
on their programs, missions, and current vulnerabilities. These
security steps are important and necessary, but equally importantly
they must be addressed in the context of strengthening cyber-security
throughout the Department.
COMPUTER SECURITY FUNDING
Question. Are the needs for computer security funds widespread
within the Department? What are the practical implications if this
funding is not provided?
Answer. OCIO has requested an increase of $6.6 million for fiscal
year 2001 to complete implementation of a corporate cyber-security
program. This will allow OCIO to expand USDA's Cyber-Security Program
Office, establish a department-level Information Technology Risk
Management Program, develop a USDA Information and Telecommunications
Security Architecture, and conduct employee training program to
heighten awareness among all USDA employees about security risks and
their responsibilities in mitigating those risks. Strengthening cyber-
security is a top priority across
USDA. Each agency has already or will soon be undertaking a
comprehensive risk assessment to identify its vulnerabilities and take
steps to mitigate them based on the value of the data that they manage.
Some, such as NASS, have completed these assessments and have requested
funding to implement corrective measures. We anticipate that future
agency budget requests will reflect their cyber-security needs once
their assessments are complete.
COTTONSEED ASSISTANCE
Question. Mr. Secretary, as you are aware, the fiscal year 2000
Consolidated Appropriations Act provided you with discretionary
authority to provide assistance to producers of cottonseed. This
authority referenced some $117.2 million in available unobligated funds
which could be used to finance such assistance.
It is my understanding that of the $117.2 million in unobligated
funds that we identified in the bill, the Department first subtracted
the $4.7 million for implementation of the mandatory price reporting,
then used these funds for the across-the-board cuts that were also
required by the bill, then reserved $10 million for the Step-2 program
for Extra Long Staple cotton, thus leaving $74 million for cottonseed
assistance. It is my understanding that assistance in the order of $20
per ton would be necessary to raise the price received to a 5-year
Olympic average. The amount of funds that you have left for cottonseed
would only provide about $13 per ton--35 percent less than the average.
It is also my understanding that prior to the clarification
included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, the Department was
already working to develop a program to assist cottonseed producers
from other disaster funds. So, it would seem to me that because we
identified available funds from which assistance to cottonseed
producers could be made, we actually reduced the amount of money they
would have received.
Why were the mandatory price reporting funds not subjected to the
across-the-board cut?
Answer. The statutory authority for the 0.38 percent government-
wide rescission provided the Secretary with discretion to target the
reduction. Implementation of livestock mandatory reporting is a key
element in providing information needed to promote competition in
livestock markets and is especially critical to smaller producers.
Taking more than a token cut would have hampered our ability to
implement this effort during fiscal year 2000.
Question. It is my understanding that no final decisions have been
made to date about whether to exercise this authority. You and I last
spoke about this issue in December. When do you intend to make a
decision?
Answer. Department staff are developing options for the cottonseed
support program and the ELS cotton competitiveness payment program. We
have determined that approximately $84 million will be available for
the two programs. We expect to determine the operating provisions of
the programs soon.
Question. Do you have any intention to supplement the $74 million
remaining from other disaster funds?
Answer. We likely will allocate $10 million for the ELS program.
That would mean that the cottonseed program could be funded at $74
million, a payment of about $11.50 per ton of seed produced. We would
not propose to increase the cottonseed payment unless our preliminary
estimate of unspent supplemental AMTA funds proves too low. In that
case, we would allocate any small increment to cottonseed payments and
not propose to increase funding for ELS.
SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Question. Mr. Secretary, I understand that the budget includes a
legislative proposal estimated to cost $5.8 billion in fiscal year 2001
and $11 billion over the next three fiscal years (2000-2002).
It is my understanding that a major component of this initiative
includes a payment-limited income assistance program. Mr. Secretary,
you have been quoted as saying that even with the proposed payment
limit, only 2 percent of current AMTA payment recipients will be
ineligible. Further, it is my understanding that an individual that
received less than the $30,000 payment limitation would have his
supplemental payment reduced by his AMTA payment.
On what basis did the Department estimate that only 2 percent of
current AMTA recipients would be ineligible? In my State of
Mississippi, I would estimate that the opposite would be true, only 2
percent would be eligible for a payment under this new program.
Answer. The $30,000 Supplemental Income Assistance Program (SIAP)
payment limit was selected to limit the amount of supplemental
assistance provided to very large family and non-family farms. This
limit would apply to combined payments under SIAP and Agricultural
Marketing Transition Act (AMTA) payments. This combined payment
limitation is mutually exclusive to the $40,000 payment limitation for
AMTA payments alone. For example, a producer eligible for $20,000 in
AMTA payments would be eligible for up to $10,000 in SIAP payments, but
a producer receiving more than $30,000 in AMTA payments would not be
eligible for any SIAP payments. The purpose of SIAP is to target
smaller producers who have lower farm incomes. For that reason, SIAP
payments would supplement farm incomes of those producers who already
receive less than $30,000 in AMTA payments. Our preliminary analysis of
1998 AMTA payments indicates that only 2 percent of all producers would
be ineligible for some level of SIAP assistance and an additional 6
percent would have their supplemental assistance reduced under the
proposed limit. Based on the same analysis, only 8 percent of
Mississippi producers would be ineligible for SIAP payments. By
reducing the amount of payments that go to the very largest producers,
supplemental assistance to small- and medium-sized family farms would
increase by more than 20 percent.
Question. Can you give us an estimate of the geographic
distribution of these payments?
Answer. Yes, I can provide that information for the record.
[The information follows:]
The table below provides an estimated percentage breakdown of
Supplemental Income Assistance Program Payments by State for 2000
crops. The numbers are a preliminary estimate based on 1999 production
of wheat, feed grains, rice, upland cotton, and soybeans. The
distribution of payments by State are determined by the level of SIAP
payments going to each crop and the level of each State's production of
that crop. This distribution can vary widely from year-to-year as
payment and production levels vary among the crops and States. For
crops, such as wheat, upland cotton, sorghum, and rice, where a large
percentage of all U.S. production is concentrated in a relatively small
number of States, changes in payment levels for these crops can
significantly affect the overall distribution of SIAP payments among
States. With the exception of North Dakota (the second largest wheat-
producing State in 1999), the States with estimated shares of SIAP
payments greater than 5 percent were also the leading producers of
wheat, upland cotton, sorghum, and rice. (North Dakota was the leading
wheat producing State in 1995 and 1996.) Because SIAP is intended to
offset current year reductions in revenues for each supported crop, the
large shortfall projected for wheat revenues in 2000 results in
projected SIAP payments for wheat which are more than the SIAP payments
for all other crops combined. The largest share of wheat SIAP payments
would go to those States with the largest share of wheat production. If
future prices for the various commodities generate larger payments to
commodities other than wheat, the geographic distribution of payments
would of course, be much different from the example distribution shown
in the table which assumes most of the payments would be for wheat.
Estimated Supplemental Income Assistance Payments, Percentage by State
State Percent
Alabama....................................................... .27
Arizona....................................................... .49
Arkansas...................................................... 6.57
California.................................................... 3.42
Colorado...................................................... 3.11
Connecticut.............................................................
Delaware...................................................... .17
Florida....................................................... .04
Georgia....................................................... .60
Idaho......................................................... 3.69
Illinois...................................................... 4.28
Indiana....................................................... 2.16
Iowa.......................................................... 3.33
Kansas........................................................ 14.28
Kentucky...................................................... .82
Louisiana..................................................... 2.18
Maine......................................................... .02
Maryland...................................................... .43
Massachusetts...........................................................
Michigan...................................................... 1.50
Minnesota..................................................... 3.99
Mississippi................................................... 1.58
Missouri...................................................... 2.37
Montana....................................................... 4.93
Nebraska...................................................... 4.72
Nevada........................................................ .04
New Hampshire...........................................................
New Jersey.................................................... .05
New Mexico.................................................... .38
New York...................................................... .34
North Carolina................................................ .96
North Dakota.................................................. 7.26
Ohio.......................................................... 2.47
Oklahoma...................................................... 3.85
Oregon........................................................ .99
Pennsylvania.................................................. .53
Rhode Island............................................................
South Carolina................................................ .33
South Dakota.................................................. 3.72
Tennessee..................................................... .66
Texas......................................................... 7.51
Utah.......................................................... .37
Vermont.................................................................
Virginia...................................................... .50
Washington.................................................... 3.58
West Virginia................................................. .01
Wisconsin..................................................... 1.15
Wyoming....................................................... .34
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 100
Note. Estimates are based on 1999/00 wheat, feed grain, rice, upland
cotton, and soybean production.
Question. Do most of them go to the upper Midwest?
Answer. No, not necessarily. Since the Supplemental Income
Assistance Program (SIAP) payments are tied to production, the largest
shares go to the corn belt, central plains, and northern plains States.
However, the southern States, including Oklahoma, Missouri, and Texas,
would account for 28 percent of all SIAP payments, based on the above
estimates.
Question. One could infer from this new program that in order to
spend the $2.4 billion allocated for these payments, that farmers of
crops other than traditional program crops (corn, wheat, cotton, rice)
would be eligible. Is this true?
Answer. The Administration's proposal assumes $5.6 billion in
payments for 2000 and 2001 crops. The Supplemental Income Assistance
Program (SIAP) would provide assistance to producers of wheat, corn,
grain sorghum, barley, oats, oilseeds, upland cotton, and rice. The
proposed program could be expanded to include other crops, but
recognize that we are working with a limited budget. We will work with
Congress to include other crops, but will insist on remaining
consistent with budget spending limits.
NEW DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY
Question. Mr. Secretary, the budget includes a $153 million
legislative proposal to create a new Delta Regional Authority, $30
million of which is for start-up costs for the new entity, and the
remaining $123 million is to be targeted to the Delta counties from
existing programs within the Departments of Housing and Urban
Development, Commerce, Transportation, Agriculture, Labor, Health and
Human Services and Education. Can you explain how much of this $123
million is for the Department of Agriculture?
Answer. The proposal contains $10 million in funding for the Rural
Business-Cooperative Service, $8 million in program level for the
Intermediary Relending program and $2 million in technical assistance
grants.
Question. For what programs will it be used?
Answer. The Intermediary Relending program and Rural Business
Opportunity Grants.
Question. Is this in addition to the funds already set-aside for
empowerment zones from within existing USDA programs?
Answer. Mr. Chairman, all of the funds referenced in the initiative
are new funds. In the case of Rural Development's programs, they are in
addition to the funds set-aside for the empowerment zones and
enterprise communities.
PARTNERSHIP FOR CHANGE--COLONIAS INITIATIVE
Question. A Colonias Initiative is proposed by the fiscal year 2001
President's budget to promote nutrition assistance, health care, and
job training placement to eligible participants. This new initiative
would be a Federal-State pilot program funded at $5 million within the
Food Program Administration account. Why is this a USDA proposal rather
than a Health and Human Services initiative?
Answer. The Colonias Initiative is part of the Partnership for
Change Initiative that has been operating in the Food and Nutrition
Service's Southwest Regional Office for several years. So it is
primarily a USDA, not a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
effort. The Regional Office, as part of its normal operating activity,
worked in conjunction with other USDA and Federal Agencies in 10
Colonias communities in Texas in 1999, sparking the building of some
WIC clinics, helping with USDA rural development targeted loans and
grants to the Colonias for installed water and sewer systems, and also
getting the various programs there working together to assist residents
in finding employment and job training, housing, and language and
health services.
In addition to HHS, the Regional Office has worked with the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), with Texas A&M
staff, and with the many local agencies that operate social services
and infrastructure development projects.
COLONIAS SITE SELECTION
Question. How did the Department determine that only the Colonias
was to be the appropriate site for a Federal-State Pilot program?
Answer. Partnership for Change works in other areas, but the
Colonias are the focus of the budget initiative due to their need.
These are very needy communities along the U.S. Mexican border occupied
primarily by Hispanics experiencing high poverty and unemployment rates
and little infrastructure--substandard housing, utilities, water,
health, and roads.
The Initiative will increase coordination of Federal, State and
local programs and resources to work with residents to address their
special needs. The initiative fosters effective use of existing social
services and infrastructure building resources. The Initiative does NOT
seek to initiate new, not-yet-authorized programs or to change existing
regulations.
OTHER SITES CONSIDERED FOR PARTNERSHIP FOR CHANGE
Question. Were other areas, such as the Mississippi Delta and
Alaska native villages also considered for this type of program?
Answer. The Southwest Region is presently assessing the possibility
of a similar Federal-State initiative in the Mississippi Delta region
of Arkansas and Louisiana.
TIME FRAME FOR PARTNERSHIP FOR CHANGE
Question. What is the time frame for this proposed pilot program?
Answer. The $5 million requested by FNS would be used to expand the
Partnership for Change model to all four U.S. Mexico border States and
to increase the effort at existing sites. Depending upon the extent of
success, we may seek expanded funding in future years.
nutrition education and program information
Question. The President's budget request proposes additional
funding for a food stamp nutrition education and a program information
initiative to inform eligible non-participants of the availability of
food stamp benefits. How much additional funding is proposed for this
initiative?
Answer. We are requesting $10 million for this initiative.
PROVISION OF FOOD STAMP INFORMATION
Question. How will the agency use this funding to inform non-
participants?
Answer. The funding will be used to try to ensure that eligibles
are aware of their eligibility. We are pleased that many former food
stamp recipients have moved on to jobs, and off of the food stamp
rolls. Data reflect, however, that there are many who are eligible for
food stamps whose households could use food stamp assistance in their
transition towards work and responsibility, but who are not signing up
for benefits. I will ask the agency for more details on this campaign.
[The information follows:]
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is considering a number of
ways to most wisely use these resources. Some of the approaches under
consideration include:
--Staffing of the FNS toll free information number with live
operators.
--Developing a device to prescreen households for eligibility and
benefits. This prescreening tool might also be placed on the
FNS Web site so that participants, advocates, and others can
use the guide in the privacy of their homes or offices.
--Increasing the number of program access reviews in States with
identified customer service problems.
--Printing our educational materials in bulk quantities to assist
others in their efforts to reach underserved individuals.
--Funding grants or cooperative agreements with national
organizations that are willing to actively promote the campaign
through their constituency networks. Such groups could include
advocacy groups, health organizations, the faith based
community, Federal, State, and local program managers, and
others.
Ultimately FNS will try to identify all potential ideas, evaluate
to determine which of them would yield the most positive impact on
recipients, and implement the most effective strategies.
FOOD STAMP INFORMATION BUILDS ON EXISTING EFFORTS
Question. How will this differ from the agency's current outreach
activities?
Answer. Currently USDA and program stakeholders have done much to
reduce potential barriers to participation, including ensuring that
eligible recipients know they are eligible and how to apply. The fact
that too many eligibles appear not to be signing up for benefits,
however, suggests that additional effort is needed. That is why we seek
the additional funds. Let me ask the food and Nutrition Service to
supply some additional details on how this effort differs from current
efforts.
[The information follows:]
Our current campaign essentially relies on the voluntary efforts of
organizations willing to support the campaign financially and with
their own resources. However, these organizations are indicating to us
that, while they are willing to facilitate the campaign through their
own communications networks, they need materials in large quantities to
support their efforts. To date, we have not had resources to produce
the bulk copies that these organizations could use to effectively reach
potentially eligible individuals.
The new educational initiative will continue to be targeted towards
the elderly, disabled, working poor families, and households containing
legal immigrants, those persons most underserved in the Food Stamp
Program. This initiative will enable FNS to print and distribute the
educational materials that have already been developed but have not had
wide distribution. Widespread dissemination of the materials will help
to overcome Program misconceptions and barriers to Program
participation, such as changes in Food Stamp Program policy that
facilitate program access and availability, special accommodations for
elderly persons, information to help working poor understand that they
may still qualify for Food Stamp Program benefits, and encouragement to
certain immigrants that they may be eligible for the Food Stamp
Program.
These materials, as well as increased use of the media and
enhancements to our Web site and toll free number services, will enable
FNS and the stakeholders to more effectively educate the public about
the Food Stamp Program and its requirements. The new initiative will
build on the existing plans by providing the tools our partner
organizations say they need to be successful.
MONITORING ABUSE VIA ELECTRONIC BENEFIT TRANSFER (EBT)
Question. A congressional study showed that the Government loses
billions of dollars to fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.
Many States have switched from food stamp coupons to electronic
benefits transfer (EBT) for disbursement of food stamps. This study
claims that problems still persist. How is the Department monitoring
the abuse of EBT as it applies to food stamp disbursement?
Answer. EBT has been misunderstood as a panacea to all program
waste, fraud and abuse. It is not. EBT improves the efficiency of
delivering, redeeming and accounting for food stamp benefits. It makes
it much easier for USDA and the States to detect trafficking and some
types of fraud and abuse. The largest area of loss in the report is
erroneous allotment calculations for food stamp households, which
cannot be affected by how the benefits are actually delivered--be it by
the efficient EBT system, or by the traditional paper coupon system.
Nonetheless, EBT is a big help. USDA and the States are moving up
the learning curve on how to best use EBT audit trail data for fraud
reduction. FNS uses a system called Anti-Fraud Locator Using EBT
Retailer Transactions (ALERT) which uses EBT transaction data to
identify suspicious retailer activity.
LOWER MISSISSIPPI DELTA NUTRITION RESEARCH
Question. It has been noted in the press that USDA will audit what
people in Mississippi are eating to see what makes them so obese. How
is the Department implementing this new anti-fat campaign?
Answer. ARS has a project in the Lower Mississippi Delta region
known as the Nutrition Intervention Research Initiative (NIRI) whose
goal is to improve the nutrition and health of families of the Delta
region, including Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. NIRI is
currently conducting a telephone survey of a random sample of
individuals in these states to determine what they are eating. From the
existing data, we know that obesity is a problem in all of the three
states. However, to date we do not have the evidence to suggest that
they are necessarily eating more fattening foods in comparison with the
rest of the U.S. population. From the new data that we collect, we hope
to better understand the causes of obesity in the Delta region and
develop appropriate intervention strategies to change eating behaviors,
if necessary.
Question. Is this a nationwide campaign?
Answer. The Delta NIRI is currently conducting a telephone survey
of a random sample of individuals residing in Arkansas, Louisiana, and
Mississippi.
ACTIONS TO ADDRESS HUNGER IN SEVEN STATES
Question. Mississippi was one of the seven States with hunger rates
of 12.6 percent or higher according to a USDA study conducted during
1996-1998. What actions have USDA made to address the hunger rates in
these seven States?
Answer. Our programs directly address these problems for the low-
income population. In addition to the efforts of Child Nutrition, WIC
and commodity distribution programs, the Food Stamp Program, being the
cornerstone of the Nation's nutrition assistance effort, has made a
number of initiatives to increase participation. Allow me to have the
Food and Nutrition Service summarize their efforts.
[The information follows:]
The seven states with hunger rates of 12.6 percent or higher are:
Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oregon and
Texas. Specific actions taken by the Food Stamp Program to address high
hunger rates in these States include:
--State and local government and advocacy organizations in these
States were among those provided with Food Stamp Program
educational and access materials for distribution to
potentially eligible households. These materials include
flyers, posters, information packets and CD ROMS. The CD ROMS
were provided by FNS so that States and organizations may print
additional materials for an even wider distribution.
--We have conducted Food Stamp Program access reviews in each of the
seven States cited above. We are working with each State to
correct any deficiencies or obstacles to program access
identified in each review. In addition, we are currently
accumulating a listing of best practices in program access
among the high-performing States and we will work with these
seven States to implement these practices and procedures where
appropriate.
--Some of these targeted States are already developing and adapting
best practices to address the issue. Oregon and Arizona have
State optional program educational plans. In addition, the
Oregon State agency has placed their application on their Web
site to facilitate the food stamp application process.
Mississippi and a number of other States have developed
educational materials and videos targeted to needy households.
This material is distributed through State and local agencies,
cooperative extension offices, faith-based communities, WIC
offices and advocacy groups.
--We have in place a USDA food stamp toll-free number, 1-800-221-
5689, for households to call to obtain information on
participating in the FSP. We recently upgraded this system to
provide callers with the option of obtaining their State's toll
free number. For example, when prompted, a resident from
Mississippi simply punches in his/her zip code to obtain
Mississippi's toll-free number.
We are requesting $8 million in additional funding to do more to
assure that eligible persons have access to the FSP. These seven States
will continue to be targeted in any future activity.
CAUSE OF HIGH RATE OF HUNGER
Question. What is this high rate of hunger attributed to?
Answer. USDA does not have the definitive answer to this question.
Research on both household and State determinants of food insecurity
and hunger is ongoing. Factors that are likely to affect State
prevalences include the poverty rate, cost of living, income stability
(vs. cyclically or seasonally variable income), and strength of
extended family and community support systems, including the effective
use of USDA-funded nutrition assistance programs.
WIC VENDOR ACCESSIBILITY
Question. Why does USDA want to limit the number of retailers that
can participate in the WIC program?
Answer. USDA policy is that WIC retailers should be accessible to
WIC recipients and that they should carry and have available all of the
WIC foods, taking into account cultural preferences. There is no effort
to reduce the number of retailers. Stakeholders are cognizant that
there is a cost to the States to adequately manage and monitor
retailers. States seek to maintain an appropriate number--balancing
recipient access and the State's ability to adequately monitor the
program to prevent abuses.
WIC VENDER ACCESS IN RURAL AREAS
Question. Won't this burden recipients, especially those living in
rural communities?
Answer. We anticipate no particular change affecting rural
communities. The changes to the rules are to ensure that only qualified
retailers, accessible to recipients, are authorized.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR MANDATORY FUNDS
Question. The Department will propose legislation to expand the
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
(WHIP), the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the
Farmland Protection Program, and the Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP). This proposed ``Farm Safety Net Initiative'' includes an
additional $1 billion in mandatory spending over authorized levels to
enhance these conservation programs. How much of this new mandatory
funding proposed would be used to provide technical assistance for
these programs?
Answer. The proposed legislation to implement the Farm Safety Net
Initiative will provide a total of $266 million in Conservation Credit
Corporation funding over the five year period fiscal years 2001-2005
for technical assistance costs related to the CRP, WRP and FPP. This
will support the enrollment of 250,000 acres annually in the WRP and
will enable the acreage cap for CRP to be raised to 40 million acres.
Technical assistance needed for WHIP and EQIP are not subject to the
Section 11 cap and are based on a percentage of each program's total
funding level. WHIP would require 25 percent of the program level, or
$12.5 million while EQIP would require 19 percent or $61.75 million.
Question. Currently Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) funds for
administrative support services is capped at the 1995 level of total
allotments and transfers to Federal and State agencies (the so-called
Section 11 ``cap''). This limitation affects the amount of dollars used
for conservation technical assistance. How does this limitation affect
the conservation technical assistance available for each of the
mandatory conservation programs?
Answer. The programs that are affected by the ``Cap''include the
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),
and the Farmland Protection Program (FPP). The current limitations of
the ``Cap'' do not allow for the full reimbursement of all of the
required technical assistance needed to carry out these programs.
Question. The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request proposes
an increase of $86 million, for a total of $652 million in 2001, for
conservation technical assistance for the President's Clean Water
Action Plan. What type of activities will this increase support?
Answer. The Conservation Technical Assistance proposes a $86
million increase of which $33 million is for activities associated with
the Clean Water Action Plan. This includes $20 million in accelerated
technical assistance to animal feeding operations (AFOs) to develop and
begin implementing comprehensive nutrient management plans and $13
million for additional environmental monitoring and research work. In
addition, $11 million will be redirected to AFO technical assistance.
The balance of the increase that is not associated with the
President's Clean Water Action Plan will include $28 million for
additional field-based technical assistance staff to provide needed
conservation technical assistance to farmers, ranchers, and other land
users across all states; $15 million for activities that are related to
global climate change, including soil carbon studies and livestock
management pilot programs; $5 million to help farmers plan, develop,
and implement conservation-based biomass production systems; and $5
million for cooperative agreements with State and county governments to
develop various geospatial data to help communities better plan and
assess their zoning and development strategies.
Question. The Conservation Reserve Program's current acreage
enrollment is a total of 36.4 million acres. Does the fiscal year 2001
budget request for NRCS conservation operations propose enough funding
provided for the needed conservation technical assistance and staff
years to meet this current ``cap''?
Answer. Technical assistance for CRP is provided by reimbursements
from CCC. Therefore, the fiscal year 2001 President's Budget does not
propose CRP technical assistance funding in the NRCS Conservation
Operations account. Instead, the Budget proposes to increase the CCC
reimbursable cap to provide for needed technical assistance.
Question. The fiscal year 2001 request includes $4 million in
subsidy budget authority for a new $60 million loan program to provide
loans to state and local governments for the rehabilitation of aging
dams built over the past 50 years. (This need exists nationwide,
including Mississippi.) How many projects will be supported through the
new program?
Answer. It is estimated that 10-20 watershed projects per year
could receive loans at this funding level. Funds would be transferred
to the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) for servicing these loans. Funds
for loan subsidies, $4.17 million, would come from the existing
watershed operations, financial assistance account and expenses
necessary to administer the loans would be transferred to RUS from the
existing watershed operations, technical assistance account.
FARM LOANS
Question. Mr. Secretary, in your opening statement, you mention
that USDA has streamlined its guaranteed loan making regulations in
order to encourage more private lenders to participate in the program.
What is the difficulty that private lenders have had with participating
in the guaranteed loan program?
Answer. In the past, lenders have been hesitant to participate in
FSA's guaranteed loan program because of the perception that the
program was required too much paperwork required.
Question. What changes did the Department make in the regulations
that will encourage increased private lender participation?
Answer. The streamlined guaranteed loan regulations give lenders
increased flexibility and make the rules more consistent with standard
procedures in the banking industry. The new regulation reduces
requirements for loans of $50,000 or less. For these applications, FSA
requires limited supporting documentation and historical data. The only
forms needed to apply are an FSA application, balance sheet, and cash
flow statement.
We also implemented a Preferred Lender Program (PLP) for lenders
experienced with the FSA guaranteed loan program. Under PLP, FSA
approves the lender's system of credit management, and the lender is
then able to obtain a guarantee under a simplified process tailored to
each lender's own policies. To apply for an FSA guarantee, the PLP
lender submits only a one-page signed form and a narrative addressing
certain credit criteria. The guarantee is automatically approved if FSA
does not take any action within 14 days of receiving a complete
application.
We also increased flexibility in our collateral and servicing
requirements. We now permit the subordination of direct loan security
in favor of a guaranteed loan when specific indicators, such as cash
flow and equity, are at a level that indicates sufficient financial
strength. In addition, we allow the subordination, exchange, or release
of collateral when in the borrower's and Government's best interest.
COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION
Question. The fiscal year 2001 President's Budget request includes
an increase of approximately $55 million to continue emergency
operations to eradicate Mediterranean fruit fly, Citrus Canker, and
Asian Long-horned beetle infestations. In past fiscal years, the
agency's contingency funds and Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)
funding were used for emergency operations. Why has the Department
requested this increase in appropriated funds for emergency operations
for this particular fiscal year instead of using its current authority
to use CCC funds and APHIS contingency appropriations?
Answer. An important factor in the decision was the anticipated
length of time necessary to combat the infestations. In all three
cases, we used emergency funding sources to begin a multi-year
eradication effort. We are submitting the budget request and believe it
is appropriate to obtain Congressional scrutiny through the regular
appropriations process.
Question. How will this shift from CCC to direct appropriations
reduce the agency's ability to meet its ongoing requirements?
Answer. Our request assumes that adequate funds will be
appropriated to enable us to meet our ongoing requirements and that the
continued eradication funds would not come at their expense.
Question. How much of this increase is going to be used for the
Mediterranean fruit fly?
Answer. Of this increase, $23,200,000 will be used for the
Mediterranean fruit fly program.
Question. The Citrus Canker?
Answer. Of this increase, $20,500,000 will be used for Citrus
Canker.
Question. The Asian Long-horned beetle infestations?
Answer. $4,600,000 of this increase will be used for the Asian
Long-horned beetle infestations.
EMERGENCY LOANS
Question. The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for
emergency loans is $150 million. According to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's 2001 Budget Summary, this proposal reflects funding to
accommodate the expansion of eligibility to larger farms through
Treasury loans, and to close the eligibility gap with the Small
Business Administration (SBA) emergency loans. What is the current gap
in eligibility for emergency loans between the USDA and SBA programs?
Answer. Existing statutes prohibit the SBA from providing disaster
loans to any agricultural enterprise. The FSA emergency loan program is
presently limited to family farms. The net result is that larger than
family farms (those farms which require substantial labor beyond that
required by the family and exceed the size of a typical farm in the
community) cannot receive a disaster benefit that smaller farms
receive, and some agricultural businesses are currently not eligible
for any emergency loans.
Question. Does this legislative proposal have a related cost?
Answer. A major component of the cost of the emergency loan program
results from subsidizing the difference between the interest rate
borrower's pay (3.75 percent) and the governments cost of borrowing
money (6 percent). The legislative proposal would reduce the subsidy
cost of the emergency loan program because larger than family-size farm
borrowers would pay an interest rate equal to the Government's cost of
borrowing money. The subsidy rate for the emergency loan program is
24.53 percent for fiscal year 2001. Under the proposed legislation, the
subsidy rate is estimated to be 21.54 percent based on the assumption
that 30 percent of emergency loan borrowers would be large farmers
paying 6 percent interest, and 70 percent would be family-size farmers
eligible to receive the subsidized rate of 3.75 percent.
RURAL HOUSING DIRECT AND GUARANTEED LOANS
Question. The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request proposes
$120 million for direct loans and $200 million in guaranteed loans for
multi-family housing. The Administration plans to propose an
elimination of the statutory requirement that 20 percent of the loans
guaranteed must receive interest assistance. This legislative proposal
would reduce subsidy cost of this program. What is the cost savings,
assuming this legislative change is made by the Senate Banking
Committee?
Answer. Currently, the cost of the guaranteed loan program is less
than two cents on the dollar. We are proposing to make the program even
more cost effective by eliminating the provision that requires us to
provide subsidies for at least 20 percent of the loans. We feel that
this provision is unnecessary in most cases because the tenants served
by this program have incomes high enough to generate sufficient cash
flow to the borrower to allow repayment of the loan. This provision
makes the loan much more difficult and costly to administer equitably
and market across the country. In addition, operation of the program is
burdensome for banks because while borrowers make monthly payments to
the banks, RHS pays the interest credit on the loan annually. Should
Congress revise the Housing Act as proposed, the Section 538 program
will become budget neutral.
The cost savings to the Government for the proposed change is
estimated to be about $3 million for fiscal year 2001.
EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE TO MIGRANT FARM WORKERS
Question. For fiscal year 2001, the President's proposed budget
includes $5 million for emergency assistance to migrant farm workers.
Is this a new program?
Answer. This is not a new program. It is a continuation of the
emergency grants to assist low-income migrant and seasonal farm workers
that the Congress funded in the fiscal year 1999 spring supplemental
appropriations bill.
Question. If yes, how would the program be implemented?
Answer. This program will be implemented through a Notice of
Funding Availability (NOFA) process.
Question. What type of emergency assistance would be provided?
Answer. This money will help farmworkers who face natural disaster
or economic hardships by providing emergency services to low income
migrant and seasonal farm workers. The types of services could include
assistance directly to the farm worker such as meeting rent or mortgage
payments, utility bills, child care, transportation, school supplies,
food, repair or rehabilitation of farm worker housing. In addition,
facilities related to farm worker housing such as an infirmary for
emergency care, a child care facility, or construction of new farm
worker housing units could also be provided.
Question. How does this program differ from the emergency grants to
assist low-income migrant and seasonal farm workers that the Congress
funded for $20,000,000 in the fiscal year 1999 spring supplemental
appropriations bill?
Answer. This program is a continuation of the assistance from the
fiscal year 1999 supplemental appropriations bill.
Question. From fiscal year 2000 funds made available for the Fund
for Rural America for fiscal year 2000, $2.5 million was allocated for
farm labor housing projects at three or four high priority areas. What
are the geographic locations of these priority areas?
Answer. The three high priority areas are the States of California,
Florida, and Washington.
Question. The budget proposes funding to maintain Farm Service
Agency (FSA) federal and permanent non-federal staffing levels in
fiscal year 2001 at the fiscal year 2000 levels, but to reduce
temporary non-federal staff by 622 staff year positions due to the
decreased workload requirements of the agency to carry out programs for
crop and market loss assistance. Will the FSA staffing levels proposed
in the fiscal year 2001 budget be adequate to support the
Administration's ``Farm Safety Net Initiative''?
Answer. FSA fiscal year 2001 non-federal staff year levels are
based on performing workload activities similar to fiscal year 2000,
with the exception of assumed decreases for crop and market loss
assistance programs and somewhat lower loan deficiency payments. These
activities account for the proposed decrease of 622 temporary FTE's.
Staffing impacts associated with the proposed ``Farm Safety Net
Initiative'' have not been determined and are not included in the
proposed fiscal year 2001 staffing levels.
Question. The budget also indicates that the Administration will
propose legislation to convert all non-federal Farm Service Agency
personnel to Federal employee status in 2000. Will this proposal have
any impact on the agency's funding requirements or affect the staffing
levels presented in the fiscal year 2001 budget?
Answer. The conversion of all non-Federal county office employees
to Federal status in fiscal year 2000 will allow greater accountability
of all employees under one personnel system and improve efficiency of
Agency operations. It is not anticipated that the conversion will have
a significant affect on agency funding needs or staffing levels.
Question. In November 1999 the FSA had approximately 5,300 to 5,700
temporary employees on board to help with the delivery of payments to
farmers. FSA knew at the start of the fiscal year that it could not
keep this very high level of temporary employees if additional funds
were not appropriated. The Congress appropriated an additional $56
million for basic program delivery needs, not for temporary employees.
Did the agency have to reduce the number of temporary employees after
November 1999?
Answer. Although we are not certain what is meant by ``basic
program needs'', we cannot meet those needs effectively without
temporary employees. The FSA used the $56 million to retain about 665
permanent county office employees who were originally budgeted for
separation in order to meet basic program needs and the balance of the
funding was used to retain the temporaries needed to deal with
extremely high volumes of ongoing workload, including record loan
deficiency payments. We consider that to be basic program needs because
long delays in getting payments to producers were avoided. In order to
achieve timely delivery of programs and handle ongoing producer
requests, FSA will likely spend all funding available for temporary
staff years, except for staff years needed to operate county
committees, in the first 6 months of the fiscal year. We will then
begin releasing temporaries in late February and March.
Question. If yes, by how many?
Answer. During the months of February and March, FSA anticipates
the need to reduce nearly all of the temporary employees except for
temporary staff years associated with county committees.
Question. If a reduction occurred, how did this affect the
timeliness of the delivery of payments to farmers?
Answer. A reduction did not occur in the numbers of temporaries
after November because Congress appropriated $56 million in CCC funds
for use by FSA. We used this funding as previously discussed and
``front-ended'' the use of temporaries to keep current on all workload
for as long as we can. We have had no producer or congressional
complaints about payment delays, as we did last year, as a result of
this policy.
Question. If a reduction did not occur, what was the time line for
the delivery of ad hoc disaster payments to farmers?
Answer. We anticipate some difficulty in completing timely sign-ups
for some of the disaster assistance programs and an increasing lag in
providing other payments to producers.
Question. Which payments have not been delivered to farmers to
date?
Answer. By using most available funding for temporaries during the
first 6 months of the fiscal year, the Agency has remained current in
most workload and late-payment interest being paid to producers has
dropped considerably from fiscal year 1999.
INVASIVE SPECIES
Question. The Department has been addressing problems caused by
invasive plant pests and pest species. What has triggered the need to
increase and strengthen the Department's efforts in this area, as
reflected by the 33 percent increase in funding (from $396 to $528
million) presented to this subcommittee?
Answer. Two events have triggered the need to increase the USDA
request. First, in February 1999, an Executive Order charged the USDA
and 20 other Federal agencies with coordinating a strategy to combat
non-native species which pose a threat to agricultural and natural
resources. Second, the on-going acceleration of trade and
transportation systems to meet the demands of the global marketplace
reflects the Department's request for these funds. Unfortunately, these
organisms or invasive species do not honor traditional geographic
boundaries. Indeed, the pests are one of the by-products of global
trade. Without the requested funding, easy opportunities will continue
for unwanted pests and non-native organisms. A total of $561 million,
an increase of $136 million or 32 percent, is proposed to exclude,
detect, and eradicate incipient populations and manage established
species. However, the USDA portion of this request represents only
$15.4 million. The Department's Animal Plant Health and Inspection
Service (APHIS) is the largest stakeholder for this Initiative. The
requested increase will continue to strengthen the Department's on-
going programs which have been addressing problems caused by invasive
plant and pest species. The APHIS fiscal year 2001 request is $8.8
million (including $4.45 million in prevention, $3.95 million for
detection, rapid response, and control, and $400,000 to promote public
awareness). In addition, increases of $1.1 million are proposed to
support research efforts at Agricultural Research Service (ARS) labs,
universities and with other cooperators, $1.5 million for a Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), and $4
million for the Forest Service to expand control, restoration, and
monitoring for invasive species within the National Forests.
BIOTECHNOLOGY
Question. Secretary Glickman, would you please discuss the
significance of biotechnology to the future of American agriculture.
Answer. Biotechnology has enormous potential to benefit American
farmers, to help us address difficult environmental problems, and
better enable us to help combat hunger worldwide and improve nutrition.
Biotechnology is only one of the tools we are using in approaching
these problems, but it may be our most important one. Biotechnology-
derived crops currently or potentially may offer farmers savings of
time and energy, be more economical to produce, enable better disease
and pest control, reduce pesticide use, decrease soil erosion, increase
crop yields, improve nutritional content, and use less water. In
addition, new value-added crop varieties with new and desirable output
traits may provide important new sources of income for producers.
U.S. and world agricultural markets are rapidly evolving and
diversifying. The development of new differentiated markets will offer
new opportunities and challenges throughout the agricultural production
and marketing chain. With the high technology farming and identity
preservation tools available to American farmers, they should be
uniquely able to profit from these innovations. Pharmaceutical,
nutraceutical, and other specialty crops under development may increase
the unit value of agricultural production. It will, however, be vital
to ensure that farmers themselves are able to realize a significant
portion of this added value.
Over the past several growing seasons, U.S. farmers have rapidly
adopted the new technologies, so that, according to one recent study by
the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
Applications, over 70 percent of the world's roughly 100 million acres
of transgenic crops were planted in the U.S. in 1999. However,
ultimately our ability to realize these potentials depends on
maintaining and enhancing public confidence in our regulatory system
and in resolution of the current problems in international acceptance
of our new biotechnology products, particularly in Europe. Market
uncertainties and an increased level of domestic concern have
complicated seed purchase calculations for farmers. Issues of concern,
scientific and otherwise, need to be addressed in a fuller public
dialogue before we can fully benefit from appropriate uses of
biotechnology in agriculture.
Question. Please tell us what significance, if any, the new
international agreement on genetically modified organisms would have
and what are its shortcomings from the United States' point of view.
Answer. The Biosafety Protocol to the United Nations
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will provide a regulatory
framework for international trade in bioengineered products known as
living modified organisms (LMOs). The Protocol is an environmental
agreement aimed at protecting biodiversity, and was adopted by more
than 130 countries on January 29, 2000 in Montreal, Canada. The
Protocol has to be ratified by 50 countries before it can go into
effect, taking from 2-3 years. U.S. is not a party to the CBD, and
therefore cannot ratify the Protocol. However the U.S. exporters will
be called upon to conduct trade of LMOs in a manner consistent with the
objective of the Protocol.
The Protocol preserves the countries' rights under other
international agreements, including the World Trade Organization (WTO).
It requires that regulatory decisions regarding biodiversity be based
on scientific risk assessments. Countries will not be able to use
unfounded concerns about biotechnology as the basis for keeping
products out of the country. If an exporting country challenges the
decision of an importing country to not accept a bio-engineered
product, it will turn to WTO for assistance. WTO establishes a
biosafety clearinghouse to help countries exchange scientific,
technical, environmental and legal information about LMOs produced
through the use of biotechnology. The agreement requires governments to
provide the clearinghouse with information on the final decisions on
the domestic use of an LMO commodity within 15 days of deciding on a
course of action.
Because the Protocol is designed primarily to protect the
environment from the potential effects of introducing an LMO, the most
immediate impact on agricultural trade will be for seeds exported for
planting. Bioengineered seeds will be part of an Advanced Informed
Agreement procedure where importing country must decide whether to
approve the import of a biotech seed. If the seeds are approved they
require documentation specifying their identity and traits.
The Protocol will not alter the status quo for bulk commodities
containing a biotech component. These commodities will not have to be
segregated. Many countries require the approval of new biotech crop
varieties under their national laws and regulations. The Protocol,
however, does not mandate or encourage that countries take such action
nor does it mandate any type of notice and consent procedure for
commodities. Upon the enforcement of the protocol, documentation for
shipments of bulk commodities will have to state that the shipment
``may contain'' LMOs and that the contents of the shipment are not
intended for planting. In addition, the Protocol establishes a two-year
process under which further documentation requirements will be
considered. The scope of the Protocol does not cover food safety.
Processed products are not covered by the Protocol. As a non-Party to
the CBD, our ability to directly influence the outcome of the
negotiations was somewhat limited. Thus, we were unable to correct a
series of more minor drafting flaws in the text. Despite our
disadvantaged position, however, we were able to achieve all of our
major objectives in the negotiation.
BIOTECHNOLOGY
Question. What is the Department doing to address the dissension
among agriculture groups, the concerns of the food industry, and
opposition from activist groups regarding genetically modified
organisms and the effect this controversy is having on U.S. farmers?
Answer. With the current level of controversy and concern, it is
very important that all the relevant Federal departments, including
USDA, provide accurate information to the public regarding
biotechnology. USDA has developed a web site on biotechnology to
address key questions for the public and we have formed an internal
Biotechnology Communications Committee to ensure that our various
agencies provide consistent messages on topics that arise. This group
is also working with the communications offices at FDA and EPA to
improve interagency coordination in public outreach. A key
responsibility we have as a Department is to defend the integrity of
our regulatory processes and decisions. This is a role our regulatory
and policy officials perform in public meetings throughout the U.S. as
well as in bilateral and multilateral fora. It is vital for our
continued credibility that we continue in this role, and are seen as
balanced and impartial.
There has been increased media attention to various potential risks
posed by biotechnology and there have been questions raised by some
about the adequacy of the existing Federal regulatory system for
biotechnology products. It is to be expected that, as for any new
technology, questions will continue to arise. To ensure that we can
address, in an authoritative manner, any scientific issues that may
arise, I have asked the National Research Council of the National
Academy of Sciences to set up a Standing Committee on Biotechnology.
The membership on this committee and its charge will be announced
shortly. The first task of the Standing Committee will be to examine
the risk assessment process and the assumptions underlying it as used
by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in its safety
reviews of biotechnology products for agricultural use. The Standing
Committee will in that study consider whether we are addressing all of
the relevant scientific issues appropriately, and identify any areas
where USDA might improve its regulatory oversight based on the most
recent scientific knowledge. It will also consider how most
appropriately to monitor biotechnology products that have been approved
for commercial use.
Question. What do you think the role of USDA should be in
protecting the interests of U.S. farmers in this matter?
Answer. A variety of social and economic issues have been raised by
critics either of the technology itself or of some of its key
agribusiness proponents. A number of these complex questions need to be
aired in a balanced public forum and the implications raised carefully
considered, in order both to shed light on the public debate and to
provide me with important recommendations to help guide future USDA
activities. On February 4, 2000, USDA announced the membership on our
new Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology which will address
these issues. The committee will meet for the first time on March 29-
30, 2000 in Washington, DC. Additionally, we believe that it is
essential that there be accurate information available about the
economic impacts on farmers who use biotechnology-derived crops, and on
the environmental effects of their use in terms of inputs such as
pesticides. We are increasing our data-gathering efforts in these
areas.
The increased controversy surrounding export concerns have led a
few food processors and shippers to shy away from biotechnology-derived
materials. This has added confusion in the marketplace, as there are
increasing demands by some end-users for testing of commodity shipments
for the presence of biotechnology-derived materials. There are no
common standards for such testing, nor are there common requirements
from end-users, but there are an increasing number of companies
offering a variety of testing services. This is an arena ripe for
unsubstantiated claims and abuse, which can ultimately impact
producers, shippers, and processors. USDA is setting up, under the
auspices of its Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards
Administration, a reference laboratory which will evaluate and validate
the testing claims of the various testing kits and services available
in order to minimize these impacts. We are also considering whether
there are other appropriate activities we might undertake to help
address current marketplace uncertainties.
ADMINISTRATIVE CONVERGENCE
Question. The fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Act prohibits funding
for the establishment of a Support Services Bureau, as proposed by the
President last year, or a similar entity to converge the administrative
functions of the Farm Service Agency, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, and Rural Development agencies. I find no mention
of this in the fiscal 2001 budget. Does the Department plan to proceed
with any convergence of the administrative functions of these agencies
in fiscal years 2000 or 2001?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 President's budget proposes the
elimination of section 750 of the General Provisions, which prohibited
the establishment of the Support Services Bureau (SSB). Proceeding with
the consolidation of the administrative and information technology
staffs of the county-based agencies is essential to gain the
efficiencies and management improvements that are needed to provide
one-stop quality service to our customers.
Currently, each of the three Service Center agencies (the Farm
Service Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Rural
Development) retains separate administrative structures. This
arrangement defeats our goal of providing seamless, quality service to
our farmers and rural residents as efficiently and effectively as
possible.
The SSB organization would converge three redundant, overlapping
agency bureaucracies into one cost-effective, comprehensive
administrative services operation. The scope of this convergence would
be limited to the administrative areas of human resources management,
financial management, management services, information technology, and
civil rights. For example, the SSB organization will eliminate two-
thirds of these agencies' existing administrative structures and will
immediately consolidate 44 separate administrative divisions in these
agencies down to 10. The SSB will not divert program resources to
administrative activities; in fact, it is needed because USDA agencies
are being asked to provide improved program delivery services with less
funding and staff. The SSB is designed to allow agencies to operate
efficiently at lower levels of administrative staff and funding.
As we have continued our related efforts to reengineer Service
Center business practices and develop a common computing environment,
the need for the SSB has only become more urgent. We are committed to
streamlining these functions and I urge the Congress to remove the
restrictive language that prevents the Department from moving this
initiative forward.
BIOBASED PRODUCTS/BIOENERGY
Question. The fiscal year 2001 budget proposes a 56 percent
increase in USDA spending for the development of biobased products and
bioenergy in support of the President's goal of tripling U.S. use of
biobased products and bioenergy by 2010. What is the significance of
this proposed investment to U.S. farmers and rural communities?
Answer. We expect that this investment will have a significant
strengthening effect on farm product prices and will enhance the pace
of job formation and income generation in rural communities. We have
not, as yet, conducted analyses that adequately quantify either the
likely increases in farm and forest product prices and farm income
generated by the proposed increases in biomass activities or the
effects on rural job formation and income generation. One of the
pressing needs for which we have requested additional funding for the
Office of Energy Policy and New Uses (OEPNU) in the 2001 budget is to
undertake such analyses.
Based on very limited analysis, however, we have determined the
projected farm gate price to be paid farmers for switchgrass used for
co-firing electric power generation. A payment to farmers of $40 per
ton would be required to bid 42 million acres away from other land uses
(crop, pasture, and CRP land) in order to produce 188 million tons of
switchgrass in 2008. That would be used to generate 43,371 megawatts of
electric power. Most of the switchgrass would be produced in the
Southeastern and Midwestern states. Based on the analysis, major crop
prices rise, as a result of bidding land into switchgrass production.
In 2008, corn prices are projected to be 24 cents per bushel higher,
soybean prices 61 cents per bushel higher, wheat prices 49 cents per
bushel higher, and rice prices $1 per hundredweight higher, than what
prices would have been without the switchgrass production. Net farm
income in 2008 is projected to be $5.5 billion higher than without the
switchgrass production.
We believe it is very important to understand the likely effects on
farm and forest product prices and on farm income as a result of the
President's biobased products and biomass for energy initiative. We
believe, as well, that it will be important to better understand the
extent to which this initiative will stimulate new business
development, employment growth, and income generation in rural
communities, analyses we intend to undertake with the requested
funding.
We also intend to undertake analysis of market potential that will
identify those biobased products and crops that represent high
potential markets. In this way it will be possible to focus product
research, development, and demonstration efforts in ways that deliver
the maximum payoff for taxpayer dollars invested.
We believe the requested 2001 funding will enable us to both
identify high potential markets and also to develop a much better
understanding of the benefit of this initiative to producers, and rural
America.
TRADE
Question. What efforts are being made by the Department to improve
agricultural trade and how does USDA's fiscal year 2001 budget request
expand and enhance economic and trade opportunities for U.S.
agricultural producers?
Answer. The Department has taken a range of actions to improve our
trade performance over the past several years. We have undertaken a
significant expansion in the programming of CCC export credit
guarantees in response to the financial crisis in Asia and elsewhere.
We have increased our food aid activities substantially. Last year,
U.S. food aid programming increased to over 9 million metric tons, more
than the double the previous year's level. We will again be providing a
substantial level of foreign food assistance this year, including
nearly 4 million metric tons under the authority of section 416(b).
We continue our efforts to improve access to overseas markets
through a vigorous trade policy agenda. Last year, the United States
reached two significant trade agreements with China that will improve
access to that growing market. We also continue our preparations for
the new round of multilateral agricultural trade negotiations.
The 2001 budget provides increased funding for the Foreign
Agricultural Service which will support an expansion in some of its
most important activities related to trade, including its market access
compliance and negotiation efforts and overseas trade offices.
Again this year, the budget contains proposed legislation which
would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to reallocate unobligated
EEP funds to carry out other export related activities, including
foreign food assistance and overseas market development.
Question. What have been our major successes to expand and open
markets for U.S. agricultural products?
Answer. The Department has had numerous successes during the past
year. A summary of some of the most significant will be submitted for
the record.
[The information follows:]
recent progress in the opening and expansion of overseas markets
Asia.--The United States and China signed an Agreement on U.S.-
China Agricultural Cooperation in April 1999, an unprecedented step
forward in U.S.-China agricultural trade relations. Once fully
implemented, this agreement should result in an estimated $900-million
increase in annual U.S. agricultural exports to China.
In December 1999, U.S. and Indian negotiators reached agreement on
India's phase-out of quantitative import restrictions on a wide range
of food and agricultural products in accord with an April 1999 WTO
Dispute Settlement Resolution. Elimination of these restrictions, which
are to be phased out by April 1, 2001, has the potential to increase
U.S. food and agricultural exports by as much as $200 million a year.
The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries
(MAFF) officially lifted its ban on unapproved varieties of tomatoes
(primarily roma and cherry varieties) from the United States and Canada
in September 1999. The sales potential for these varieties in Japan is
estimated at up to $10 million a year. Also last year, Japan's Ministry
of Construction (MOC) agreed to allow construction of three-story wood-
frame apartment buildings in its major urban areas for the first time,
a historic change to its building code that is estimated to increase
U.S. wood export opportunities by $150 million annually.
Sponsorship by the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) of purchasing
officials from 85 South Korean food importing companies at the May 1999
Food Marketing Institute Show in Chicago, Illinois paid handsome
dividends. Of those in attendance, 49 South Korean companies made
purchases totaling $42 million in U.S. sales.
Europe and Newly Independent States.--After 5 years of
negotiations, the United States and the EU signed a Veterinary
Equivalency Agreement on July 20, 1999, to facilitate trade in animal
and animal products. The agreement covered approximately 40 product
areas valued at $3.0 billion, combined.
In 1999, FAS negotiators helped to conclude important bilateral
agreements that paved the way for Estonia and the Republic of Georgia
to join the WTO as full members. U.S. agricultural exports to the two
countries are expected to grow by approximately $3-4 million annually
following their accession to the WTO.
Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market Development (FMD)
funded activities by the American Hardwood Export Council earned the
organization an award from a United Kingdom Government agency promoting
business sponsorship of the arts. This and a wide range of other
creative activities promoting US hardwood, resulted in increasing press
coverage and market profile in Europe, the leading overseas market for
U.S. hardwood products, with annual exports valued at over $600
million.
In a major effort to assist Russia through its acute food shortages
and economic crisis, the United States supplied the country with Public
Law 480, Title I credit financing to purchase U.S. corn, soybean meal,
soybeans, beef, rice, and poultry. Proceeds from the sale of the
commodities allowed the Russian Government to make overdue payments to
pensioners. Other commodities, including Alaskan salmon, rice, lentils
and peas, dried beans, soybeans, and vegetable oil were provided as
food donations to vulnerable populations throughout Russia through
various Private Voluntary Organizations.
In fiscal year 1999, the CCC Supplier Credit Guarantee Program was
used for the first time by importers in the Baltic Region, the Republic
of Georgia, and Turkey. Program coverage for the Baltic Region included
roughly $940,000 worth of meat products. Coverage for the Republic of
Georgia and Turkey included about $2.9 million worth of U.S. poultry
products and $57,000 in U.S. hides and skins sales.
The United States and several countries within the EU worked
jointly in 1999 to apply biotechnology and other tools to improve crops
and food safety, identify costly plant pathogens that limit trade,
reduce production and post-harvest costs, monitor genetic diversity in
economically and environmentally important forest species, and improve
management strategies to prevent environmental contamination from
agriculture. FAS's role in the effort helped bring together U.S.
scientists from universities and USDA agencies with the EU
counterparts.
Western Hemisphere.--The Southern U.S. Trade Association (SUSTA), a
regional FAS cooperator, was honored with the 1999 Produce Business
Marketing Excellence Award for its ``Go South!'' marketing campaign.
Now in its third year, the MAP-funded multi-year marketing campaign
produced outstanding results, reaching approximately 20 million
consumers through its advertisements, which were aimed at increasing
consumer awareness, and increasing commodity sales an average of 106
percent in fiscal year 1999.
Foreign Market Development Program funds were used by the USA Rice
Federation to sponsor one Ecuadorian and two Colombian rice trade
delegations to the United States to familiarize them with the U.S. rice
industry. This resulted in several Ecuadorian and Colombian importers
purchasing U.S. rice for the first time, pushing rice sales to the two
countries to $28 million and $74 million, respectively.
In response to Hurricane Mitch, CCC donated 200,000 metric tons of
wheat valued at $31 million to the Governments of Honduras, Nicaragua,
El Salvador, and Guatemala in fiscal year 1999 under the authority of
section 416(b). An additional 45,000 metric tons of corn valued at $6
million also was donated to the region under the same program.
Africa and Middle East.--The Cochran Fellowship Program developed a
U.S.-Sub Saharan Africa Workshop on Codex Alimentarius and the WTO,
involving 37 participants from 17 African countries. The training
improved participants' understanding of the processes at work in the
WTO and the international standard setting bodies. Most importantly,
the discussions pointed out areas of shared interests, including mutual
concerns in the next round of multilateral negotiations. The
participants agreed that there are significant areas in which the
United States and Sub-Saharan African countries can cooperate in
international trade and the work of the international standard setting
bodies.
FAS staff implemented many first-time Food for Progress programs in
Sub-Saharan Africa in 1999. Sub-Saharan African countries benefitting
from the programs included South Africa, Zimbabwe, Swaziland, Togo,
Cote d'Ivoire, and Equatorial Guinea.
Commodities donated included: rice, wheat, wheat flour, vegetable
oil, and pinto beans. The proceeds from the sale of these commodities
are being used to address basic infrastructure development needs in
these countries.
TRADE
Question. What have been the major barriers?
Answer. There are a number of different types of barriers.
First, while U.S. agricultural exports have been trending down, so
has global trade in agricultural commodities. Global demand has been
weak due to the lingering effects of the 1998 Asian financial crisis
and higher production of basic commodities worldwide. This has resulted
in soft world market prices for many basic agricultural commodities and
foodstuffs. Additionally, the U.S. dollar remained strong during fiscal
year 1999, making U.S. products more expensive relative to competitor
countries' products.
Second, our major competitors--the European Union (EU) and the
Cairns Group--have been outspending the United States in both public
sector and private sector market promotion funding by a wide margin.
Market promotion activities were not disciplined in the Uruguay Round.
Our competitors were quick to recognize this, increasing spending by 35
percent in the past three years. Also, direct export subsidies, while
disciplined under the Uruguay Round, are still at formidable.
Third, the commodity composition of our competitors' exports are
more closely aligned with the fastest growing sector of global import
demand--namely high value products. U.S. high value product exports
have performed well over the past two decades and have grown in
importance, but they still represent a smaller share of our overall
agricultural exports than our competitors. This is especially true of
our top competitor, the European Union, which is already the world's
leading high value product exporter and could, as early as this year,
overtake the U.S. as the world's leading agricultural exporter.
CIVIL RIGHTS
Question. This Committee has provided increased resources over the
past couple of years to strengthen the Department's civil rights
efforts and to assure the timely handling of civil rights
investigations and complaints. What progress has the Department made in
this area and what additional resources are requested in the fiscal
year 2001 Budget (by agency and activity as compared to fiscal year
2000 to enhance these efforts?)
Answer. Ensuring that all customers and employees are treated
fairly and equitably with dignity and respect has been one of my top
priorities. Your support has been critical to the Department's progress
in aggressively addressing civil rights concerns. We have taken several
steps toward turning USDA into a civil rights leader in the federal
government.
We have nearly eliminated the backlog of more than 1,000 old
program civil rights complaints. We are providing the support needed to
resolve the cases under the Pigford v. Glickman class action lawsuit.
As a result, the adjudicator has made decisions in about half of the
cases filed to date. We have also made changes to our internal
processes for handling civil rights complaints, instituted universal
civil rights training for USDA employees at all levels, and stepped up
monitoring and review of civil rights enforcement both in programs and
employment throughout the Department. All agency heads were evaluated
on civil rights performance during fiscal year 1999, and there was
improved performance in all but two agencies. Over 90 disciplinary
actions, including removal, have been taken against employees for
discrimination or misconduct related to civil rights. Consistent with
the recommendation of our Civil Rights Action Team, the Office of Civil
Rights has been reorganized into separate units with distinct
responsibilities for overseeing the timely and effective resolution of
program and employment discrimination complaints. USDA also launched a
new tracking system for processing program discrimination complaints in
1999.
Departmental Administration has overall responsibility for the
civil rights program at USDA and the President's fiscal year 2001
budget request for DA contains several increases related to civil
rights. An increase of $1 million is requested to enhance the use of
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) for resolving employee and program
complaints. ADR can reduce the number of complaints and accelerate the
resolution of many cases. We believe the program will resolve workplace
and programmatic conflicts in less time and with less financial and
human cost. The budget request also includes a $500,000 increase for a
pilot program in small rural business education and development. This
effort will support traditionally under-represented groups in
establishing viable commercial operations and guide them in identifying
new markets for agricultural products. A $7 million increase is
requested for the Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers Program
to provide education and training needed to help these farmers succeed.
In the coming weeks, I will be releasing a progress report on civil
rights that provides additional details on efforts throughout the
Department to address these issues.
AGRICULTURAL CONCENTRATION
Question. Increased funding has been provided over the past few
years to support the implementation of the recommendations of the
Secretary's Advisory Committee on Agriculture Concentration. Would you
please give the Committee a report on the status of implementing each
of the recommendations made by the Advisory Committee.
Answer. The Secretary's Advisory Committee on Agricultural
Concentration made a large number of recommendations in four broad
areas: antitrust and regulation, a market-based disclosure policy,
vertical linkages, and cooperatives and producer bargaining. USDA's
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) has
undertaken several initiatives that address the Committee's
recommendations; our response to each of these broad areas is listed
below.
For Anti-Trust and Regulatory actions, GIPSA increased staffing to
address competition, due to its recent reorganization. In this way it
added economic, statistical, and legal expertise to pursue prospective
anti-competitive practices. It also establish a Memorandum of
Understanding between USDA, the Department of Justice and the Federal
Trade Commission so that greater cooperation is achieved in the areas
of anti-competive packer and grain practices.
For Market Based Disclosure the Congress passed, legislation
requiring mandatory price reporting of livestock. AMS recently proposed
a rule to implement this legislation.
For Vertical Linkage actions, GIPSA conducted a broad investigation
of fed-cattle in Texas and follwed this up with a peer review to assure
that GIPSA's analysis was sound. USDA has also worked with the
Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate the proposed acquisitions by
Smithfield Foods, Inc. of Murphy Family Farms and Tyson's pork
operations. While DOJ allowed this merger, USDA is ready to pursue
other troublesome mergers in the future.
For Cooperative and Producer Bargaining Agreements, GIPSA is now
contracting in a cooperative fashion with researchers at universities
across the Nation to address issues of competition in the poultry
markets. Also GIPSA has conducted major investigations to determine
whether contract poultry grower settlements are fair and non-
discriminatory.
Question. What additional funding is requested for fiscal year 2001
to continue the implementation of these recommendations?
Answer. GIPSA has asked for an increase of $1.2 million to develop
econometric models to help identify collusion, predatory behavior,
price leadership, market allocation, failure to compete, price and non-
price discrimination and other restraints in the procurement of cattle,
hogs and lambs by meatpackers.
An increase of $800,000 is requested to examine the competitive
structure of the poultry industry. This project will assess the
characteristics of markets for poultry grower services. Over 95 percent
of broilers are grown under contract so there is no market for the
birds. But there is a market, with supply and demand functions, for
grower services. We know that integrators offer contracts for grower
services and we know the general terms of those contracts. We also know
that many growers complain about being unable to negotiate the terms of
their contract, about insufficient information about contract terms,
about early termination of contractual arrangements, and about contract
settlements. However, we know very little about the supply of grower
services at various levels of compensation; grower costs and returns;
why integrators offer contracts in some areas but not others; how
integrators compete with each other for growers; how contract terms
vary with the number of competing integrators in an area; and other
information relating to the structure and competitive behavior of this
industry.
An increase of $1.3 million is requested for Rapid Response Teams
to address major investigative issues of immediate and often National
concern regarding anti-competitive, financial and trade practice
issues.
An increase of $350,000 is requested for an Information Staff. In
addition, GIPSA is required to collect, compile, and publish a monthly
report . Recent events strongly indicate that hog and chicken
producers, as well as others in the farm community, need to become
better informed about GIPSA's role in the marketplace. Grain farmers,
and the grain industry as a whole, are also going through a difficult
period. Some groups, especially small farmers and socially-
disadvantaged farmers, lack information to successfully deal with the
increasingly complex business of growing and selling farm products.
Also, an increase of $400,000 is requested to establish a swine
contract library as required by the Livestock Manadatory Reporting Act
1999.
FARM SAFETY
Question. I note that the fiscal year 2001 budget proposes a new $5
million youth farm safety education and certification program under the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. What is
the need for this program and why can't the activities proposed be
supported through the existing farm safety program?
Answer. The Fair Labor Standards Act and selected state laws allow
child agriculture workers to work at younger ages, for longer hours,
and in more hazardous occupations than in other industries. Minors 16
and 17 years of age are exempt from prohibitions on work in hazardous
occupations identified by the Secretary of Labor, and 14 and 15 year
old children are exempt from the hazardous occupation restriction if
they possess a valid certificate documenting completion of safety
training for tractor operation or other machine operation. This new
Youth Farm Safety Education and Certification Initiative would
establish a USDA-administered competitive grants program to States to
provide formal safety training and certification targeted to youth age
16-17 years. These grants would also be used for related purposes such
as curriculum improvement for current safety programs and development
of new safety education curricula for other agricultural occupations as
needed. The initiative would provide funds to land-grant institutions
in order to contract with qualified private businesses and community
and youth organizations to deliver education and training, such as 4-H,
Future Farmers of America, and other similar organizations that would
provide safety education that prepares youth for safety certification.
This initiative is intended to augment state and local vocational
agriculture school funds for safety training by agricultural employers
and other private businesses, and is intended to enhance the safety of
young farm workers, while maintaining their employability in
agriculture and minimizing disruptions to farm employers' access to
youth workers.
Question. How was the rescission of fiscal year 2000 funding for
farm safety applied, i.e., what reduction was made in funding for the
AgrAbility program versus the farm safety formula program.
Answer. The rescission was applied proportionately against the
formula portion and AgrAbility. The revised appropriation for Farm
Safety in fiscal year 2000 is $3,400,430. This appropriated amount is
split between formula funds and AgrAbility.
[The information follows:]
Formula Funds........................................... $803,352
AgrAbility.............................................. 2,597,078
Question. Does the fiscal year 2001 budget continue funding for
AgrAbility?
Answer. Funding for AgrAbility is not proposed in the fiscal year
2001 budget.
Question. If not, why?
Answer. This action is consistent with the Administration's belief
that the most effective use of taxpayer dollars is through
competitively-awarded, peer reviewed grants. Alternate funding from
formula programs, State and local governments, and private sources
could be used to support aspects of this program deemed to be of high
priority at State and/or local levels.
LIVESTOCK REPORTING
Question. The fiscal year 2000 Consolidated Appropriations Act made
available $4.7 million which the Department indicated was necessary to
implement the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999 (Title X of the
fiscal year 2000 Agricultural Appropriations Act). The Committee
requested it but did not receive a detailed justification on why this
level of funding was required and just how these funds would be spent.
Would you please provide that for the record?
Answer. Additional staff are required to analyze and edit large
amounts of new data that has never been available through voluntary
reporting. Also, a compliance unit must be established to audit packer
records to insure that packers are accurately reporting the required
information. Time sensitive information requires electronic
transmission of a large volume of records on a daily basis during
periods of short duration. A computerized process must be developed to
manage the data. Outreach programs to educate producers about the new
information will increase travel, in addition to travel associated with
managing the program. I will provide for the record a detailed
accounting of how these funds would be spent.
[The information follows:]
[In millions of dollars]
Fiscal year 2000 Costs
Salary and Benefits............................................... 2.2
Travel, Transportation, Rent, Utilities, & Communications......... 0.5
Training, Agreements, & Supplies.................................. 0.4
Computer System Development Contracts............................. 1.1
Equipment: Hardware, Software, & Licenses......................... 0.5
______
Total....................................................... 4.7
Question. What increase, if any is included in the fiscal year 2001
request to implement the requirements of the Livestock Mandatory
Reporting Act of 1999?
Answer. Congress authorized the Department to initiate mandatory
reporting in 2000 and provided start-up funding of $4.7 million through
a one-time transfer from Commodity Credit Corporation funds. For 2001,
the budget includes $5.9 million in funds appropriated to the
Agricultural Marketing Service to continue the mandatory livestock
reporting program; $0.4 million to the Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration to establish a swine contract library; and,
$0.6 million to the National Agricultural Statistics Service to
increase the frequency of hog and pig reports from quarterly to
monthly.
Question. Please provide a detailed justification as to how the
funds requested for fiscal year 2001 for this purpose would be
obligated.
Answer. The budget justifications are included in the agency budget
submissions. I will provide you the budget justifications included in
the agencies' explanatory notes.
[The information follows:]
FSIS' FOOD INSPECTOR RECRUITMENT EFFORTS
Background
A number of factors have made it difficult to successfully recruit
individuals to fill vacant positions in Field Operations. In the case
of Veterinary Medical Officers, positions are not competitive in
today's job market. Top quality candidates for Food Inspector positions
are also in short supply in many locations, due to many factors. The
work is typically very demanding, with strict physical requirements.
Remote locations often have a limited applicant pool, and many who do
apply have conflicts of interest that do not allow them to serve in a
regulatory capacity. In the case of Intermittent Inspector positions,
the requirement to be on-call with no guarantee of hours, and the
limited benefits, make that position less attractive to most applicants
than other options in the current job market. The Food Safety and
Inspection Service, however, is confident it will recruit a well-
qualified and diverse workforce.
FSIS efforts to increase the number of inspectors include:
--Refocusing efforts within Human Resources to increase the number of
applicants on standards registers for field occupations.
Applicants to these registers are solicited through a variety
of recruitment initiatives such as on-campus visits,
conventions, advertisements, direct mailings, and posted
announcements on the Internet and at all Office of Personnel
Management Service Centers. FSIS also publishes job
opportunities in agricultural publications, such as the
Cattlemen's Journal and Farm Bureau. FSIS recruits from
veterinary schools, Hispanic-serving institutions, and
historically black colleges and universities, as well as at
veterinary conventions and agricultural career days at
universities where candidates are identified. In addition,
public notices about FSIS jobs are available at all State
employment agencies.
--Recruiting and hiring 80 more inspectors by the end of the fiscal
year to achieve a target employment level of 7530.
--Broadening the emphasis of FSIS' recruitment program to include
other scientific backgrounds to meet current and future hiring
needs and conducting recruitment training in September to train
new recruiters in this area.
--Asking current agency personnel to assist in publicizing
recruitment needs.
--Asking candidates who applied for inspector positions in areas
surrounding locations with shortages if they would be
interested in a position in locations that are experiencing
shortages.
--Providing Veterinary Medical Officers with a recruitment bonus up
to 25 percent of their salary, particularly in areas where
there are fewer candidates. This has been approved in eastern
Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Nebraska. FSIS is also exploring
additional options, such as relocation and retention bonuses
for inspectors.
--Scheduling inspector entrance tests in locations where there is a
need for inspectors. FSIS conducts tests in 10-12 locations
around the nation each month. These tests are spread out
geographically.
--Exploring alternative ways to fill other than permanent (OTP) full-
time positions, such as permanent part-time tours of duty, and
term and temporary appointments. We will be working with the
inspectors union to explore the feasibility of options
identified.
--Collecting and analyzing exit interview data to identify possible
retention issues.
--For an application, contact Keith McFarlin at 1-800-370-3747, ext.
2580, or visit the U.S. Government official site for jobs and
employment information at www.usajobs.opm.gov.
SERVICE CENTER MODERNIZATION FUNDING
Question. What is the total dollar amount that USDA has invested on
its modernization effort to date? What will be the total cost for
implementing the entire effort and what are the milestones for
completing all aspects of it?
Answer. The USDA has invested $322,265,000 in the modernization
effort through the end of fiscal year 1999. This amount includes $8.6
million for program management and change management training, $31.1
million for Business Process Re-engineering (BPR), $122.4 million for
installation of the LAN/WAN/Voice shared telecommunications system,
$77.9 million for development and initial acquisitions for the Common
Computing Environment (CCE), and $82.3 million for acquisition of base
data for Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
The total implementation cost is estimated at $875 million through
fiscal year 2005. Major milestone dates are reflected in the following
excerpts from Appendix Q of the Service Center Modernization Plan. They
are currently under review in light of funding availability in fiscal
year 2000. It is critical that adequate resources be available to
quickly transition to modern systems and processes. During the
transition period, we are forced to pay for two sets of systems. We
must make investments in the modern technology needed to serve our
customers in the future while maintaining existing legacy systems to
serve our customers today. Delays in the modernization process mean
that the Department will incur costs for these two systems over a
longer period of time, reducing savings and delaying benefits.
[The information follows.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01FE10.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01FE10.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01FE10.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01FE10.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01FE10.005
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING FOR COMMON COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT
Question. For fiscal year 2000, Congress appropriated $12.6 million
to your office for the Common Computing Environment. Once Congress
approves expenditures of these funds, what will you require to be
completed in terms of planning and management of the Service Center
Modernization Initiative (SCMI) before you allow the funds to be spent,
and whom in the Department are you going to hold responsible and
accountable for its success?
Answer. The Deputy Secretary of Agriculture recently enhanced the
role of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) in managing the information
technology component of the Service Center Modernization Initiative
(SCMI). In March 2000, the CIO's role will be modified from one of
oversight and facilitation to one that includes direct responsibility
for implementation. The CIO will have direct involvement in CCE
planning and acquisition decisions. The CIO will also be responsible
for developing the necessary management mechanisms to ensure that the
IT modernization activities are conducted in full cooperation and
coordination with the administrative and program business elements of
the overall modernization effort. Expanding the CIO's role will ensure
that the necessary planning has been done, consistent with legislative
and other requirements, and that there is an appropriate management
structure in place to ensure successful acquisition, deployment and
operation of investments funded from this account.
SERVICE CENTER MODERNIZATION FUNDING REQUEST
Question. For fiscal year 2001, USDA requested $75 million for its
common computing environment as a separate line item, and an additional
$62.4 million from service center agency budgets. First, why did USDA
decide not to include this request under the Office of the Secretary to
ensure that these expenditures would be closely watched at that level?
Second, for the record, could you provide for the record a detailed
explanation of exactly what these funds will be used for?
Answer. These expenditures will be closely monitored by the Deputy
Secretary. However, we believe the Chief Information Officer (CIO) has
the needed expertise to direct the acquisition and implementation of
the Common Computing Environment (CCE). Therefore, the $75 million
request for hardware and software acquisitions is included in the CIO's
budget.
With respect to the $62.4 million in agency funds, we interpreted
congressional action on our previous centralized funding requests to
mean that Congress wanted to retain the base funding the agencies were
contributing to modernization in the agency budgets and provide any
increased funding under a central account.
Following is a summary of planned uses of fiscal year 2001
modernization funding:
--$75 Million Common Computing Environment Fund
These funds will be used specifically for the acquisition and
deployment of shared hardware and software to implement a CCE for the
Service Center agencies. Depending upon final fiscal year 2000
activities, the planned acquisitions and amounts are as follows:
--$1.5 million for technical architecture maintenance, piloting,
operations and deployment support;
--$33.3 million to complete the acquisition of network/communications
servers/software to fully connect the CCE workstations and
provide for remote management;
--$15 million to begin acquisition of application servers/software
needed to host business applications;
--$14.6 million for workstation and server software, including GIS;
--$8.1 million for shared peripheral equipment including networked
printers and plotters; and
--$2.5 million for training.
--$62.4 Million in Agency Funds
Planned use of agency funding is as follows:
--$22.7 million to continue BPR and pilot testing and related change
management training and program management costs;
--$23.6 million for continued acquisition of base data needed for GIS
applications, and
--$16.2 million for individual employee CCE equipment such as
workstations, portable printers, and data collection devices.
SERVICE CENTER BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING
Question. Over the past several years, GAO has been supportive of
USDA's effort to modernize the service centers computer systems but
very critical of the Department's approach of focusing first on buying
new technology without clearly understanding how one-stop services will
be delivered at all sites. What is the department's status of defining
business process for its service centers?
Answer. Business process reengineering (BPR) is at the heart of the
Service Center Modernization Initiative (SCMI). BPR analyzes the
service center agencies' current program and administrative processes
to see how they can be streamlined and integrated to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of USDA's service to customers. Our BPR
efforts to date have given us the understanding of our basic business
processes needed to move forward with the CCE and have served as the
basis for defining the CCE technology architecture. We recognize that
the CCE will need to support business as we know it today as well as
any changes in that business over the next decade. That is why our CCE
architecture is designed around open, interoperable and scalable
systems. We look at the CCE as the basic technology infrastructure to
support county-based program delivery through the first decade of the
21st century. Failure to move forward will hamper our ability to
service our customers and respond to the needs of the future.
There are 20 active BPR projects focusing on core business areas
such as lending, managing risk, conservation and environment, community
development and outreach, and administration. Each of these projects is
tested in a laboratory environment before being piloted in the field
and deployed nationally.
SCMI has initiated the reengineering design of approximately 60
percent of the Service Center business processes and will reengineer
the remaining 40 percent of the business processes as resources permit.
The BPR project designed to streamline human resources administration
has completed all testing and piloting and is being deployed
nationally. BPR projects involving the lending, community development,
managing risk, conservation, and administrative areas are scheduled to
complete testing and piloting in fiscal year 2000 and be deployed
nationally in fiscal year 2001.
ONE-STOP CUSTOMER SERVICE
Question. If I were a customer, what can I expect in terms of one-
stop service at an office where only NRCS is located but I want to
apply for a farm loan?
Answer. Currently, you could expect an NRCS employee to generally
describe the farm loan programs and provide some written information
and a referral to the FSA office servicing your county. As we complete
the development and pilot testing of some of the reengineered process
and install full CCE technology, the level of service provided will
increase. In the future, you should also be able to go into the NRCS
only office and through a user-friendly kiosk or computer terminal run
through an automated question/answer process to pre-qualify for a loan
and submit an application for the loan. You would have the option of
scheduling an appointment with the FSA loan officer either at his or
her base Service Center or at the NRCS office or going on-line
automatically, using the computer or kiosk and a two-way video
connection, to discuss your loan application and needs. The NRCS
employee could assist you to get started with the technological
connection, but since he or she is a conservationist and not a loan
officer, the technology connection will deliver the one-stop service
that we envision. In order to achieve these and other beneifts of the
CCE, it is critical that the funds requested in the fiscal year 2001
President's budget be appropriated.
SERVICE CENTER MODERNIZATION/INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Question. In light of the e-business revolution, what steps is the
Department taking to give a fresh look at the way it does business
across all agencies and whether its organizational structure at
headquarters is appropriate to deliver benefits and services to
customers in the new millennium?
Answer. Modernizing the county-based agencies is the primary effort
underway to reengineer the way business is conducted across agencies.
We are also taking steps towards implementing unified financial, human
resources, procurement, and other administrative systems that will
substantially change the way business is conducted in our headquarters
complex. Our fiscal year 2001 budget for the Office of the Chief
Information Officer requests funding for e-government initiatives that
will allow us to develop a corporate strategy for e-government,
including taking advantage of opportunities to leverage agency
initiatives across the Department. In addition, part of the $75 million
requested for the Common Computing Environment will provide enabling
technology to support e-government activities in the USDA Service
Centers. Most USDA agencies are at the initial stage of e-business,
which we refer to as e-government. Agencies are providing a wealth of
information about their programs and services, as well as market data
and other information, to citizens via the Internet. However, agencies
are also increasingly exploring ways to use the Internet to enable
farmers, rural residents, and other customers to actually conduct
secure business transactions with the Department online. In some cases,
this involves working with other Federal agencies on web sites that
will provide citizens a common online access point to programs and
services so a customer can get to important program information without
having to know which specific agency provides the service.
CIO PRIORITIES
Question. With a new Chief Information Officer (CIO), what are the
three highest priority issues, in order, for the CIO to address at the
Department? What are the time frames for addressing these issues? How
will the CIO be held accountable and what authority have you provided
to him?
Answer. Among the CIO's highest priorities are to: provide
effective leadership and oversight to the Department's Service Center
Modernization Initiative, specifically the information technology
component; enhance the security of our financial and information assets
and protect the privacy of our customers; and improve the corporate
management of the Department's telecommunications resources. With the
Congress' support, we expect to make significant progress on each of
these issues this year. The CIO is personally committed to these
priorities. He has all of the authority vested in him by the Office of
the Secretary and by the Congress through the Clinger-Cohen Act and is
working closely with the USDA management.
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE YEAR 2000 COMPUTER PROBLEM
Question. To its credit, USDA recently made a successful transition
to the Year 2000. In preparing for Y2K, the Department spent more than
$50 million to get its information systems ready. What were the
positive lessons learned, and how are they being applied today at USDA?
Answer. Our Y2K success, as well as the successful transition
through the Leap Year rollover, was the result of partnership and close
collaboration between the Information Technology and Program Management
officials. The involvement of program officials in what was previously
viewed as an IT issue ensured that accountability would rest with the
system users, not just the IT departments. Program managers have also
learned valuable lessons about the role of IT in their business
operations. This principle will continue to apply as the Department
addresses cyber-security and other key IT issues. The use of
Independent Verification and Validation--IV&V's--to provide independent
assessments throughout the Y2K project has also been demonstrated to be
a very positive tool with which to better assess and manage our
critical IT investments. In addition, the Business Continuity and
Contingency Plans--BCCPs--developed by each mission area have helped
prepare us to continue providing vital programs and services should any
future problem threaten to disrupt our mission-critical systems. A
close collaboration between program and IT officials, the use of
IV&V's, and BCCPs will continue to characterize how we manage
information technology at USDA.
Question. Beside making the actual transition itself, to what
extent has the Department been able to capitalize on its Year 2000
investment and make added improvements in the Department-wide use of
information technology?
Answer. USDA has been able to capitalize on the transition by
improving the use of information technology in several key areas. The
need to purchase Y2K compliant equipment accelerated efforts to upgrade
computers in the county-based agencies; modernize the equipment in our
Agricultural Research facilities; and upgrade many of our mission area
software applications.
SPENDING TO RESOLVE YEAR 2000 COMPUTER PROBLEM
Question. For the record, what was the total dollar amount spent by
the Department on Year 2000 fixes and what does this include?
Answer. The total amount spent on USDA's Y2K activities since
fiscal year 1996, including supplemental funding, was approximately
$188 million. This included funds for hardware and software upgrades
and replacements, renovation, validation and implementation of systems
undergoing repair, and technical assistance. Emergency supplemental
appropriations in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 provided $57 million of
this amount.
OUTREACH/TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Question. The fiscal year 2001 budget requests additional resources
for USDA outreach and technical assistance activities (e.g., the
Department's Office of Outreach, the Outreach Program for Socially
Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers, and various outreach efforts of the
USDA agencies). Please provide a list of all outreach activities of the
Department of Agriculture, by agency, account and activity. Please
provide the fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 2000, and proposed fiscal
year 2001 funding levels for each of these programs/activities, along
with a brief description of each program or activity and how it is
distinguished from the various other outreach/technical assistance
activities of the Department.
Answer. The Department is in the process of preparing a report that
will provide these details. We will make that report available to you
as soon as possible.
DETAILEES
Question. Provide a list, by USDA agency, of each employee detail
or assignment (by employing agency, title, and position) in each of
fiscal years 1999 and 2000 to date for a period of up to 32 days, and
identify the agency to which that detail or assignment was made and the
purpose of the detail assignment.
Answer. Not Included.
Question. Provide this same information for employee details/assignments
made for a period of more than 30 days, and indicate the
dollar amount of the reimbursement made to the employing agency for
each detail/assignment.
Answer. Not Included.
advisory committees, panels, commissions, and task forces
Question. Provide a list of the advisory committees, panels,
commissions, and task forces funded in each of fiscal year 1999, 2000
(planned), and proposed to be funded for fiscal year 2001, and the
amount of funding in each of these years to be allocated for each.
Answer. The following table lists advisory committees, panels,
commissions, and task forces funded in fiscal years 1999, 2000, and
2001 and the amount of funding for each year.
[The information follows:]
USDA ADVISORY COMMITTEES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001
Policy Area and Committee Title 1999 Actual Estimate Estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOD, NUTRITION AND CONSUMER
SERVICES:
National Advisory Council on $42,611 $47,350 $50,000
Maternal, Infant and Fetal
Nutrition...................
FOOD SAFETY:
National Advisory Committee 36,314 61,350 67,000
on Meat and Poultry
Inspection..................
National Advisory Committee 35,770 37,350 40,000
on Microbiological Criteria
for Foods...................
--------------------------------------
Total, Food Safety....... 72,084 98,700 107,00
RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND
ECONOMICS:
Advisory Committee on ........... 125,400 108,050
Agricultural Biotechnology..
Forestry Research Advisory 14,342 23,350 27,000
Council.....................
Strategic Planning Task Force 65,340 ........... ...........
on Research Facilities......
USDA/Hispanic Association of 19,140 17,350 21,000
Colleges and Universities...
USDA/American Indian Higher ........... 56,350 60,000
Education Consortium........
--------------------------------------
Subotal, CSREES............ 98,822 222,450 216,05
======================================
National Genetic Resources 4,508 13,850 17,000
Advisory Council............
National Nutrition Monitoring ........... 32,350 35,000
Advisory Council............
Dietary Guidelines Advisory 98,185 47,350 ...........
Committee...................
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, ARS.............. 102,693 93,550 52,000
======================================
Advisory Committee on 6,155 23,350 30,000
Agriculture Statistics......
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, NASS............. 6,155 23,350 30,000
======================================
Advisory Committee on Small ........... 127,350 150,000
Farms.......................
--------------------------------------
Total, Research, Education 207,670 466,700 448,050
and Economics.............
======================================
MARKETING AND REGULATORY
PROGRAMS:
Advisory Committee on Foreign 10,405 16,250 19,660
Animal and Poultry Diseases.
General Conference Committee 11,776 7,280 10,430
of the National Poultry
Improvement Plan............
National Wildlife Services 18,100 15,450 18,100
Advisory Committee..........
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, APHIS............ 40,281 38,980 48,190
======================================
National Organic Standards 16,909 47,350 50,000
Board.......................
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, AMS.............. 16,909 47,350 50,000
======================================
Federal Grain Inspection 27,451 28,350 32,000
Advisory Committee..........
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, FGIS............. 27,451 28,350 32,000
======================================
Total, Marketing and 84,641 114,680 130,190
Regulatory Programs.......
FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL
SERVICES:
Agricultural Policy Advisory 14,120 11,470 14,120
Committee for Trade.........
Agricultural Technical
Advisory Committees for
Trade in:
Animal & Animal Products. 14,110 11,460 14,110
Fruits and Vegetables.... 14,110 11,460 14,110
Grains, Feed, and 14,110 11,460 14,110
Oilseeds................
Sweetners and Sweetner 14,110 11,460 14,110
Products................
Tobacco, Cotton, and 14,110 11,460 14,110
Peanuts.................
Emerging Markets Advisory 32,507 30,050 32,700
Committee...............
Edward R. Madigan ........... 12,350 15,000
Agricultural Export
Excellence Award Board..
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, FAS.......... 117,177 111,170 132,370
======================================
Advisory Committee on 26,490 32,350 70,000
Beginning Farmers and
Ranchers................
National Drought Policy 407,658 440,350 ...........
Commission..............
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, FSA.......... 434,148 472,700 70,000
======================================
Advisory Committee on ........... 77,350 100,000
Risk Management.........
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, RMA.......... ........... 77,350 100,000
======================================
Total, Farm and Foreign 551,325 661,220 302,370
Agricultural Services.
NATURAL RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENT:
Task Force on Agricultural 49,443 47,350 50,000
Air Quality Research........
USDA/1890 Task Force......... 1,559 12,350 15,000
--------------------------------------
Total, Natural Resources 51,002 59,700 65,000
and Environment...........
======================================
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ECONOMIST:
Commission on 21st Century 183,332 347,350 120,000
Production Agriculture......
--------------------------------------
Subtotal, Advisory 1,192,665 1,795,700 1,222,610
Committees................
======================================
Contingencies/Reserve........ 607,335 4,300 577,390
--------------------------------------
TOTAL, ADVISORY COMMITTEES 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000
LIMITATION................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Arlen Specter
DAIRY
Question. Milk prices dropped to $9.63 per hundredweight at the end
of 1999, the lowest price in 21 years. Over the past several years,
price swings of 30 to 40 percent from one month to the next have become
common. Pennsylvania is the fourth largest dairy producer and there are
approximately 9,900 dairy farms which produce $1.73 billion worth of
milk each year. Over the past decade, however, Pennsylvania has lost an
average of 300-500 farmers per year. Between 1993-1998, Pennsylvania
lost 11.4 percent of its dairy farmers. What action is the
Administration taking to help dairy farmers who are facing record low
milk prices?
Answer. The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is purchasing cheese
and nonfat dry milk to support the price of milk. The extension of the
price support program through 2000 has permitted the CCC to purchase
almost 1 million pounds of cheese and 156.5 million pounds of nonfat
dry milk to support the price of milk. CCC expects to purchase another
1-9 million pounds of cheese and 100-150 million pounds of nonfat dry
milk in fiscal year 2000. The change in the wholesale beverage milk
price formula as part of USDA's market order reform will help dairy
farmers this year. Now the beverage milk price is adjusted by the
higher of the milk for cheese price or the milk for butter/nonfat dry
milk price. Since USDA is supporting the nonfat dry milk price, the
wholesale beverage milk price is about $1.40 per hundredweight higher
than it would be without CCC's administration of the milk price support
program. The higher beverage milk price increases dairy farm income by
over $800 million for fiscal year 2000. The price support purchases
also yield farmers an income increase of another $800 million through
the increased wholesale price of milk solids and cheese. The
Administration's proposal to strengthen the farm safety net includes
extending the milk price support program for 2 more years, until the
next Farm Bill. The Farm Service Agency is also making $123 million in
Dairy Market Loss Assistance payments to dairy farmers this spring.
DROUGHT
Question. The Mid-Atlantic States suffered $2.5 billion in losses
as a result of the drought in 1999. Pennsylvania alone suffered $700
million in drought losses. While the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture
Appropriations bill provided $8.3 billion in disaster assistance for
farmers, the vast majority of this money went to farmers in the Midwest
to compensate for low commodity prices. Only $1.2 billion was provided
for natural disasters which had to compensate for all natural disasters
nationwide, including Hurricane Floyd, flooding in the Midwest,
livestock loss and fishery loss. What action is the Administration
taking to provide assistance to farmers hit by drought?
Answer. The Administration is implementing all the programs within
our authority to alleviate the financial hardship caused by drought.
These programs include the crop disaster program, crop insurance, non-
insured assistance program, emergency conservation program, the
livestock assistance program, the pasture recovery program, and
emergency loans.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST
Question. Does the Administration plan to seek additional funds for
farmers in the fiscal year 2000 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Bill?
Answer. The Department is currently working with OMB to develop a
supplemental request for fiscal year 2000. The supplemental will likely
include authority to use unobligated Emergency Conservation
Program funds to repair farm structures and equipment damaged by
Hurricanes Dennis, Floyd, or Irene. The request will also include
language to allow CCC funds to be used to fund loan forgiveness for
loans made by producer-owned associations that suffered losses from
Hurricanes Dennis, Floyd, or Irene. We also plan to request selected
funding for the Rural Housing Service.
PLUM POX
Question. On October 20, 1999, the USDA announced that the Plum Pox
virus was found on peaches grown in Adams County, PA. This is the first
discovery of the Plum Pox virus in the United States. The virus infects
many fruit species, including peaches, apricots, plums, and almonds and
causes the fruit to fall prematurely from the tree. This outbreak has
the potential to cause severe damage to the PA fruit industry. The
orchards have been placed under quarantine and the USDA has recommended
destroying all of the fruit trees in the infected region. What action
have you taken to ensure the swift distribution of indemnification
money to PA fruit farmers?
Answer. We are considering a compensation plan based on sound
economic principles, and the compensation plan is still under review.
Question. When can farmers expect to receive appropriate
compensation?
Answer. As soon as the funding is announced, we will be proposing
regulations on how producers can participate.
YEAR 2000 DIETARY GUIDELINES
Question. The proposed Year 2000 Dietary Guidelines for Americans,
currently under review by the Secretaries of Agriculture and HHS, make
changes to the 1995 Guidelines for fats and sugars. The proposed Year
2000 guideline advises: ``Choose a diet that is low in saturated fat
and cholesterol and moderate in total fat'' and advises ``if you drink
alcoholic beverages, do so in moderation.'' However, in regard to
sugar, the proposed guidelines state ``Choose beverages and foods that
limit your intake of sugars.'' Why do the proposed guidelines use
``moderation'' language in connection with fat and alcohol but use
``limit'' language concerning sugar?
Answer. The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee was charged with
reviewing the 1995 Dietary Guidelines and determining if, on the basis
of current scientific and medical knowledge, revisions were warranted.
The Committee is composed of leading academic researchers.
Collectively, they embody immense expertise in evaluating research
studies in the areas of nutrition, medicine, and epidemiology. The
recommendations from the Committee for all guidelines are based on
their scientific judgements of the information available in the peer-
reviewed scientific literature. As a general principal, I trust
science. Let me get some more specific details as to why the specific
wordings were chosen.
[The information follows:]
According to the Committee's final report, the term ``moderation''
in relationship to total fat intake was used for the following reasons:
--The proposed change in terminology from low to moderate represents
the committee's view that a change in perception has occurred
in the meaning of these two terms with respect to total fat.
This change is not accompanied by a change in the numerical
recommendation (30 percent) for the maximum percentage of
energy provided by fat.
--There has been a long-standing belief among experts in nutrition
that low-fat diets are most conducive to overall health. This
belief is based on epidemiological evidence that countries in
which very low fat diets are consumed have a relatively low
prevalence of coronary heart disease, obesity, and some forms
of cancer However, populations in these countries tend to be
rural, consume a limited variety of food, and have a high
energy expenditure from manual labor. Therefore, the specific
contribution of low-fat diets to low rates of chronic disease
remains uncertain. Particularly germane is the question of
whether a low-fat diet would benefit the American population,
which is largely urban and sedentary and has a wide choice of
foods.
--Another reason for not overly restricting intake of total fat comes
from evidence that populations consuming higher quantities of
unsaturated fats have a favorable profile of blood lipoproteins
and a relatively low prevalence of coronary heart disease,
provided that intakes of saturated fats are low. Thus, the
recommendation for a diet moderate in total fat is based in
part on the recognition that unsaturated fats carry potential
benefits.
--The committee further held the concern that the previous priority
given to a ``low-fat intake'' may lead people to believe that,
as long as fat intake is low, the diet will be entirely
healthful. This belief could engender an overconsumption of
total calories in the form of carbohydrate, resulting in the
adverse metabolic consequences of high-carbohydrate diets.
According to the Committee's final report, the use of the term
``limit'' in relationship to sugars intake was for the following
reasons:
--The committee recommends changing the wording of the guideline to
include the word limit because intake of sugars has increased
steadily since the early 1980s.
--Although dental caries continue to provide a major rationale for
this guideline, the committee expressed very serious concern
about current trends in the consumption of sugars by the U.S.
population. These trends raised concerns because of their
coincidence with other undesirable changes in the country's
nutritional well-being, e.g., increasing rates of obesity and
inadequate intakes of calcium that carry a risk of impaired
long term bone health.
--Nationwide food intake survey data for all age groups demonstrate
that consumption of soft drinks and other sweetened beverages
like fruitades and tea increased dramatically over the past
decade.
--Other data suggest that a significant proportion of the population
may not be meeting its needs for calcium and other nutrients
because of their displacement by the increased consumption of
sweetened beverages.
The Committee concurred with the 1995 wording of the alcohol
guideline, and therefore offered no rationale for use of the term
``moderate'' in relationship to alcohol consumption.
The Committee has submitted its final report to the Secretaries of
Agriculture and Health and Human Services. The Secretaries are in the
process of reviewing the report, and will publish the official Dietary
Guidelines for Americans, Fifth Edition, after the review and clearance
process is completed. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, Fifth
Edition, will form the basis for official nutrition policy of the
Department.
WIC FOOD PACKAGING RECOMMENDATIONS
Question. I understand that the WIC program has made
recommendations that juice products should be provided in a 46 oz. can
which was the least expensive package available at the time of the
recommendation. However, it has been brought to my attention that a 46-
oz. glass packaging alternative could be made available to WIC
consumers at a slightly reduced cost. From a standpoint of good
sanitary practice, the glass jar can be resealed and is 100 percent
recyclable. Does WIC plan to provide an updated list of packaging
recommendations that takes into account current costs and benefits?
Answer. Federal WIC regulations do not restrict the form of
packaging allowed for authorized juices. State agencies are responsible
for determining the brands and types of WIC foods authorized for use in
their State from among those foods authorized in Federal WIC Program
regulations. They are also responsible for determining allowable
packaging sizes. Some States may currently be allowing the 46 ounce
glass bottle of juice.
State decisions may be influenced by a number of factors such as
cost, product distribution within a State, and WIC participant
acceptance. They are not obligated to authorize every available food
allowed via Federal WIC requirements. Additionally, the State can limit
the type, e.g., frozen concentrate, single strength, etc., or the
brand, e.g., the least expensive.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
BIOTECHNOLOGY
Question. With respect to genetically-engineered foods do you think
that labeling of such foods should rely on science-based criteria?
Answer. The issue of labeling is unresolved. It is a debatable
proposition whether labeling can e science-based. Studies are
inconclusive regarding the food safety risk associated with using GMOs.
The recent National Organic Standards regulations preclude the use of
GMOs, but it is based on marketing needs for the industry, not science-
based criteria.
GMO CROPS AND LIVESTOCK
Question. Scientists, farmers and ranchers have been genetically-
modifying crops and livestock for centuries, have they not?
Answer. The genetic makeup of crops and livestock has been improved
by selection and cross- breeding for thousands of years, with increased
precision as the rules of genetics have become better understood over
the past century and a half. The modern tools of biotechnology have
made these processes more rapid, precise, and better controlled than
ever in the past. However, it shoud also be noted that these tools also
enable the movement of genes into crops and livestock, and in some
instances traits that could not have previously been introduced by
traditional means.
GMO CROPS AND MANDATORY LABELING
Question. In the immediate term, please speak to thwe difficulty
farmers would face if forced to segregate crops for the purpose of
mandatory labeling?
Answer. There is no mechanism, measure, or verifiable test
presently in place to certify whether a segregated commodity is GMO
free. However, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration is requesting nearly $2 million to develop such tests.
Question. Please indicate how mandatory labeling requirements might
undercut our ability to negotiate trade openings abroad?
Answer. Assuming products were required to indicate whether it
contained a genetically- modified organism, USDA believes this
requirement may limit our markets abroad. There is no overall consensus
whether and under what circumstances labels would apply and whether the
perceived benefits associated wiht a label can be achieved.
On a related note, the United States is a signatory to the
Biosafety Protocol held in Montreal earlier this year. This agreement
leaves GMO decisions to the state. It reflects the lack of consensus
among the signatories on the GMO issue. It will impact bio-engineered
seeds, where an Informed Agreement process is in place so that an
importing country can decide whether to approve or disapprove of its
entry onto their soil. If approved, documentation must accompany this
shipment specifying seed identyu and traits. The Protocol does not
mandate or encourage countries to segregate or label products used for
feed or food, nor does it mandate any transaction-by-transaction notice
and consent procedure.
GRAIN STORAGE LOAN PROGRAM
Question. Do you believe that beyond the immediate term, that
additional storage capability will assist farmers if segregation and
identify-preservation is necessary?
Answer. Yes, based upon the Department's evaluation of current
storage utilization, additional storage facilities would allow farmers
to segregate or preserve the identity of certain crops if necessary.
GMO CROPS AND MANDATORY LABELING
Question. Are you concerned that there is a risk that mandatory
labeling could scare consumers in an unwarranted way that would make
them think falsely that their food is not safe and encumber processors
to such an extent that farmers would quiot using biotechnology?
Answer. USDA is concerned about the marketing risks associated with
mandatory labeling of bio-engineered crops and genetically modified
agricultural products for traditional commodities. Whether or not
labels can truly capture all the necessary information remains a
debatable proposition. Meanwhile, some farmers are limiting or
discontinuing the use of seeds that are genetically engineered.
Question. Would you expect that if consumers demanded particular
information--that the marketplace would, in effect, drive companies to
label absent a government mandate?
Answer. While the USDA encourages a market approach, it must uphold
policies that are fair. USDA is concerned that these decisions may not
be based upon a rational science-based approach, but instead focus on
the perceived risks. The trends indicate a move toward voluntary
standards, where some notable firms have already announced a ban on
genetically modified foods. Whether one agrees with the merits of this
approach, voluntary standards by some notable firms may create a
catalyst to all producers to provide a label, in lieu of a government
requirement.
Question. Please provide additional information on the NAS review
of our regulatory structure to ensure that it is as effective as
possible.
Answer. In 1986 a regulatory regime for biotechnology products was
established by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). This
organization used a coordinated framework, with shared responsibilities
for biotechnology products among the USDA, EPA, and FDA. USDA recently
proposed a further review by the (NAS), through the National Research
Council (NRC). The NRC has since established a Committee on
Biotechnology, Food and Fiber production, and the Environment.
Establishing the committee through NAS will bring the best science to
address the issues facing our regulators now and in the future. For
example, a current study is underway on genetically modified pest
protected plants which puts NAS in a unique position to judge the
merits of introduction of these new products into our environment. It
also allows NAS to further develop information obtained from its last
general biotechnology study in the 1980s to assure the regulatory
structure is as effective as possible.
STORAGE FACILITIES
Question. What is the scope of storage facilities eligible under
the President's request?
Answer. The eligibility will include grain storage facilities
including all necessary permanently attached fixtures.
Question. Do they include storage capacity for livestock feed such
as silos and pits?
Answer. High moisture grain storage facilities will be eligible to
receive a loan. Pits and silos will not be eligible because the program
will be geared toward the storage of grain.
HACCP MODELS
Question. With respect to inspector shortages, some have been told
the implementation of HACCP models program will allow the agency to
change in-plant staffing configurations. Please tell me your time line
for implementation of these new staffing arrangements.
Answer. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has developed
a time line for implementing changes as a result of the HACCP-based
Inspection Models Project (HIMP). I have asked FSIS to provide
information on the time line for the project.
[The information follows:]
In the models phase of the HIMP the staffing of each plant is
reduced to the complement needed for HIMP inspection procedures. In
inspection activities the 30 plants scheduled to participate in the
models phase of the HACCP-based Inspection Models Project are operating
under new staffing configurations. Data are being collected about
inspection workload to validate the staffing configurations in use in
the models plants, and to determine further staffing configuration
proposals. If the new inspection procedures are proven to be effective,
based on data collected by a third party, the Agency plans to publish a
proposed rule this summer that would propose extending HIMP procedures
to all young chicken slaughter plants under Federal inspection.
Consultations and negotiations with the National Joint Council (NJC),
representing inspectors, would be necessary to discuss the impact on
inspector working conditions, including changes in staffing
configurations. FSIS will not make any permanent changes until the new
system is demonstrated to be effective, the rule has been presented to
the public for comment, and is reviewed prior to any final decision.
Question. For the county-based agencies (FSA, NRCS, RD), please
provide an, estimate of the degree to which these agencies contract
with private sources for services, both at headquarters and in the
field, which have traditionally been performed by Federal employees,
such as accounting, loan servicing, information technology development
and maintenance, etc. Include estimated expenditures and FTE levels for
fiscal year 2000 and for fiscal year 1995. Finally, please describe the
process used to analyze decisions to contract our to insure that the
service level is not compromised and that cost savings are actually
achieved.
FARM SERVICE AGENCY
Answer. The following services are performed at FSA Headquarters
and our Kansas City Administrative Office (KCAO). These services are of
a type traditionally performed by government personnel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Degree FY 1995 Expenditure/FTE FY 2000 Expenditure/FTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accounting........................... N/A.................... None................... None
Loan Servicing....................... N/A.................... None................... None
IT Support Services, PC Help Desk and High................... $35,000,000............ $42,100,000
Mail Room Operations. 220 FTE................ 230 FTE
IT Maintenance....................... Low.................... None................... None
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These positions have never been staffed by government personnel,
but have been performed by contractors because the government lacks the
employees with the skill levels, needed to perform these efforts in-
house. Only after the agency performs a capability assessment to
determine if the effort can be performed by government personnel is the
effort awarded to contractors. Typically, large system operation and
maintenance is provided by contracts.
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
Answer. The Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS)
strategic information technology development model is based on the
Government's development of its business requirements. A capability
assessment is then made to determine whether the NRCSI business
requirements can be achieved in house or if contract services are
required. Typically IT project management is performed with NRCS
personnel; while contract support services are used for the actual
software development. The following matrix identifies the degree,
estimated expenditures, and FTE levels to which NRCS contracts with
private sources for services.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Degree FY 1995 Expenditure/FTE FY 2000 Expenditure/FTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accounting........................... N/A.................... None................... None
Loan Servicing....................... N/A.................... None................... None
IT Development....................... High................... $7,000,000............. $4,700,000
88 FTE................. 59 FTE
IT Maintenance....................... Low.................... None................... None
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Answer. In 1999, the Rural Housing Service's Centralized Servicing
Center in St. Louis used task order contracts (under the Office of
Personnel Management's temporary services contracting rules) to acquire
the services of approximately 50 persons to perform one-time tasks and
to provide transitional support. All other loan portfolio
administration tasks are performed by government personnel. other than
these specific CSC related temporary services, all other contract
services are commercial in nature and are awarded based on the
mandatory sources, socioeconomic preference programs or competition
requirements contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
The information technology systems used by Rural Development for
portfolio administration tasks are supported by a combination of
government and contractor staff. If the required services are
determined to be inherently governmental, only in-house resources are
used. In those cases where the government possesses a capability
similar to a commercial service provider, the decision to contract out
is based on the duration and nature of the tasks involved: the ability
to timely meet statutory or other external deadlines, and the level of
expertise and number of staff resources required to successfully
complete the tasks. All laws, regulations and guidelines on contracting
out for services are followed.
The total number of contract actions for program support services,
whether awarded by formal contracts or simplified purchase procedures,
have been coming down since 1995, due largely to changes in the budget
and in how the program is conducted in the field. In fiscal year 1995,
the total amount of service contracts was $57 million, while in fiscal
year 2000, we anticipate awards equaling $38 million or less All formal
contracts (actions above $100,000) for program support services are
essentially continuations under existing contract options or are new
competitions for services that have been traditionally contracted out.
The single exception to this trend in the past 5 years occurred with
the contracts awarded in fiscal year 1995 to support the Dedicated Loan
Origination and Servicing (DLOS) system at the CSC. The upward blip in
the trend resulted from a number of high dollar amount contracts
awarded for CSC support, such as the DLOS system's hardware and
software, and the related contracts for a tax reporting service, force-
placed insurance service, and escrow investment and disbursement
service.
In the headquarters, contract services, such as for information
technology support, have been relatively stable or have involved the
acquisition of unique services like the DLOS actions described above.
Approximately 126 fewer actions occurred in 1999 than in 1998. The
trend thus far into 2000 appears to continue downward. In the field,
almost all program support services are awarded using simplified
purchasing methods (small purchases) and average less than $10,000
each. The majority are commercial in nature (real estate appraisals,
inventory housing repairs, caretaker services, legal foreclosure
services, title services, commercial credit reports, etc.); and, the
annual number and amount of awards are dependent on program loan cost
funding levels.
Because Rural Development's service contracts are based primarily
on functional Statements of Work, they require the contractor to
deliver specified results rather than a specific number of workers.
Information concerning the number of contractor employees performing a
contract is not collected. No cost comparison studies were required
under current Federal Acquisition Regulation rules, nor done for these
program support contracts, since they were for commercial services not
normally performed by government employees. The support contracts
require the timely delivery of commercial services at fixed prices, and
at specified levels of quality, without regard to the number of
employees used by the contractor. The following matrix identifies the
degree, estimated expenditures, to which RD contracts with private
sources for services.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Degree FY 1995 Expenditure/FTE FY 2000 Expenditure/FTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accounting........................... N/A.................... None................... None
Loan Servicing....................... N/A.................... None................... None
IT Development....................... N/A.................... None................... $469,000
No FTE comparison
IT Maintenance....................... N/A.................... $5,000,000............. $7,500,000
No FTE Comparison
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
ADMINISTRATION IGNORING CONGRESSIONAL REQUEST
Question. I am concerned that this budget was put together without
any input from Congress, or from producers. There is a failure to
implement many of the focus areas that farm- state senators have been
consistently pushing for. Why did the administration ignore the
requests we have made over and over?
Answer. The Administration has tried to be responsive to the needs
of producers and others while also being responsible with the use of
the taxpayers' money. The farm safety net and other priority
initiatives in the budget include many elements consistent with
proposals advanced by key members of Congress and others. Obviously,
not every worthy idea can be accommodated in the budget, but the
Administration has put forth a set of reasonable and specific proposals
for consideration. Congress can, of course, accept, reject or modify
the proposals put forth in the budget.
Question. Why is this Administration asking for less money than
last year? Emergency spending was a good portion of the expenditures
last year. Under the circumstances, I believe we need to take a close
look at where the markets are, and decide what we are going to do to
actually help the producers who are faced with low commodity prices.
Answer. The Administration has proposed a supplemental income
assistance program specifically to aid producers of crops with
depressed prices. This proposal attempts to supplement the deficiencies
the current production flexibility contract payments which are neither
based on current production or prices. And, the safety net proposal is
designed to provide a more stable basis for providing aid to producers
in crisis than the expensive unpredictable ad hoc emergency assistance
of the level enacted over the past couple of years. Outlays for the
Commodity Credit Corporation will likely reach a record $27 billion
this year due in large part to the $9 billion emergency aid package
enacted with the fiscal year 2000 budget. Outlays for fiscal year 2001
by CCC under our regular programs are projected to be over $15 billion,
which is still relatively high since commodity prices are not projected
to improve significantly if at all although the AMTA production
flexibility contract payments will be $1 billion lower in 2001 as
required by the 1996 Act.
FSA STAFFING
Question. Your market analysts are not calling for a significant
price upswing during the upcoming 12 months, meaning we will again see
a high level of activity in FSA's LDP and Price support programs. The
Administration has proposed a new conservation payment program to help
small farmers, saying the majority will be eligible for payments up to
$30,000. Part of that same initiative is to increase CRP acres from
36.5 million acres to 45 million acres, meaning there will be more
contracts to administer. You are also implementing a farm facility loan
program. How will staff levels be allocated to cover these programs?
Answer. FSA fiscal year 2001 non-federal staff year levels are
based on performing workload activities similar to fiscal year 2000,
with the exception of assumed decreases for crop and market loss
assistance programs and somewhat lower loan deficiency payments. These
activities account for the proposed decrease of 622 temporary FTE's.
Staffing impacts associated with the proposed ``Farm Safety Net
Initiative'' have not been determined and are not included in the
proposed fiscal year 2001 staffing levels. If the Farm Safety Net
Initiative or any other legislative assistance package is enacted, we
would work with OMB and the Congress to address staffing requirements.
However, I would note that, except for CRP, the conservation proposals
would be administered by the NRCS, thereby impacting their workload.
Furthermore, increasing CRP enrollment to the proposed 40 million acre
level would occur over a number of years, not just in fiscal year 2001,
and the relatively small acreage increment in fiscal year 2001 could
probably be absorbed in terms of agency workload. We are concerned
about the farm facility loan workload in 2001, as the program was
announced for implementation too late for administrative funding to be
considered in the budget.
Question. FSA's need for temporaries has caused Supplemental
Appropriations requests at least twice in the last 2 years. If there is
a continuous need for this help, why isn't USDA budgeting for it?
Answer. Recent supplemental funding has allowed FSA to avoid
budgeted permanent employee separations, and commit additional
temporary staff resources to meet increased workload requirements due
to the economic crisis in agriculture. FSA cannot budget for emergency
and disaster program activity in advance of legislative requirements,
and as a result must respond to increased workload demand through
supplemental requests for funding and staffing resources.
Question. If we are increasing FSA programs, but decreasing
available staff, what are you doing to accommodate that?
Answer. In November, 1999 FSA received $56 million in additional
funding which allowed FSA to retain critical permanent county level
staff and commit additional staff resources to meet increased farm loan
program workload and address program delivery and payment processing
needs for marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency payments this
past fall and winter. The workload for these programs was and is still
high and new emergency programs were added by the Congress last fall.
FSA is reviewing its potential needs with the Department for
additional fiscal year 2000 supplemental funding. This supplemental
funding would permit the Agency to pay for more temporary staff years
in order to complete implementation of over 20 new emergency disaster
provisions in a timely way and also to ensure that producer payments,
including loan deficiency payments, are made timely in coming months.
Question. Are you increasing technology, or are there any efforts
being made within FSA to streamline the commodity and direct lending
programs to ease workload, and take the burden off farmers?
Answer. FSA is currently working towards posting market prices on
the Internet for use by the Agency's customers for market loan
repayments or loan deficiency payments. The process would automatically
calculate the loan deficiency payment for the farmer.
For Price Support Loan and Loan Deficiency Payment Programs, FSA
provided an Internet-based reporting system for access by Federal
entities, industry, and general public. Data excludes producer-specific
information, but does provide loan and loan deficiency payment
information. Users can also initiate queries for reports by commodity
for any active crop year.
FSA was one of the first agencies to use smart cards. For the
Agency's Peanut program, through the use of smart card technology to
store sales information, FSA assures fair and equitable quota
allocations to peanut growers.
FSA has several projects underway to streamline direct lending to
reduce workload for producers and FSA staff. The Agency has developed
procedures to reduce documentation requirements for loans under $50,000
and for repeat loan customers with acceptable loan performance history.
The revised procedures have been finalized by the Agency and will be
transmitted to the Department and then the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for final approval and publication. These procedures will
reduce the required paperwork on qualified loans to a few pages. The
Agency is also revising procedures for processing emergency (EM)
disaster loans. The new procedures must be cleared by OMB and published
for public comment, which we expect in late summer, 2000. As proposed,
the changes to the EM program will reduce the submission requirements
for producers and simplify the calculations, that must be performed by
field staff. In addition to these two initiatives, FSA has undertaken a
major initiative to streamline all other direct loan regulations. This
project will reduce the affected regulations by nearly half, eliminate
several forms, and simplify processes and procedures for making and
servicing direct farm loans. Because of the sweeping nature of this
project, completion is not projected until 2002.
Question. What is the status of allowing farmers to electronically
file for USDA/FSA programs?
Answer. FSA has taken the lead role in organizing a multi-agency
effort to develop the electronic filing capability defined by HR-852
and S-777. FSA intends to develop capabilities even if the bills do not
become law. This effort is being integrated with the Secretary's
paperwork reduction initiative and the electronic access initiative
(EAI), which is a component of the Service Center Initiative (SCI).
Significant achievements have been made in building the fundamental
components of the desired capability. We will provide more detailed
information for the record.
[The information follows:]
The Paperwork Reduction Implementation Team (PRIT) developed a
five-phase approach to meet the requirements of the bills. This
approach is being utilized to prioritize and fund development efforts.
The technical infrastructure is being developed under the Service
Center Initiative (SCI).
Phase I.--Place digitized forms on the Web. Customers complete on-
line but mail fax to USDA service center. News and information for
farmers consolidated and organized for simplified access.
Phase 2.--Forms completed on-line and e-mailed to USDA service
center.
Phase 3.--Intelligent forms that perform basic field edits.
Phase 4.--Forms linked to service center data bases. Fields pre-
filled with customer data.
Phase 5.--Forms replaced with on-line software applications.
The short-term priorities are to implement phases 1 and 2. USDA
deployment of forms on the web site is limited to forms with prior OMB
approval for on-line collection including approval of the customer
instructions. A small number of forms among the three service center
agencies and RMA already meet this criteria.
PRIT is currently seeking approval from OMB for the deployment of
Phase I. In addition, FSA makes available electronically on a daily
basis:
--market rates,
--CCC rates,
--Farm Loan rates,
--News releases via FSA's news listserver. Farmers and producers can
subscribe to the news list through the FSA web site.
FSA also provides burley tobacco lease and transfer information
online for selected states. The Agency is also establishing a website
for each Service Center that will be available to the general public,
including farmers, producers, and vendors. That site will provide the
public with national and local farm program news and information,
including notices of meetings for farmers to attend.
CIVIL RIGHTS
Question. The budget mentions you wish to federalize county office
employees. This will ease administration--none of us can disagree with
this. You have stated this is necessary for a variety of reasons,
including to make them more directly accountable to you for civil
rights reasons. However, over 90 percent of the complaints are about
Federal employees working in farm lending programs. What are you doing
to make them more accountable? What energies are you expending to
rectify this larger, more real problem? How many people have you
disciplined and/or fired over these matters?
Answer. I have clearly communicated to all USDA employees my
expectation that every customer and every employee be treated fairly
and equitably with dignity and respect. There are no exceptions and no
excuses.
Our employees have an enormous role to play in maintaining a
positive, equal opportunity environment. Therefore, we have provided
civil rights training for nearly all USDA employees. We are conducting
compliance reviews of the USDA agencies and are monitoring the
compliance review activities of the agencies' own civil rights offices.
We are improving our policies on accountability and discipline in civil
rights cases. The new policy will require an investigation into conduct
whenever a settlement agreement is approved or a finding of
discrimination is issued. Over 90 disciplinary actions have been taken
against employees, ranging from removals to letters of reprimand.
I am holding agencies accountable for meeting civil rights goals.
For example, the Farm Service Agency's annual performance plan contains
measurable, annual targets for its goals to: increase the number of
small, limited-resource, and socially disadvantaged family farmers and
ranchers elected to County Office Committee positions; increase the
number of program and employee complaints processed on time; increase
workforce diversity; and increase the number of loans to beginning and
socially disadvantaged farmers/ranchers. In fiscal year 1999, the
number of FSA direct and guaranteed loans made to minorities and women
increased 25 percent from the number made in fiscal year 1998 and 50
percent from the number made in fiscal year 1997.
Question. How many staff years of field level employees have been
consumed by doing the research on the Pigford Vs. USDA lawsuit?
Answer. We estimate that the full-time equivalent (FTE) of almost
240 field level staff years will be used during fiscal year 2000 for
Consent Decree activities related to the Pigford vs. USDA lawsuit.
About 80 percent of this estimated staff year usage will have been
expended by the end of March. Existing agency field level employees
have been doing the work at Headquarters and in the field, but this has
necessarily diverted them from their normal duties of loan making, loan
servicing, and other ongoing Farm Service Agency workload.
NATIVE AMERICANS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
Question. What should we expect now with the class action lawsuit
brought by the Native Americans?
Answer. Keepseagle v. Glickman is a class action lawsuit filed on
November 24, 1999, in the District Court for the District of Columbia
on behalf of Native Americans. The Complaint alleges discrimination
under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 in the access to and participation in USDA's farm programs.
In addition, the Complaint alleges that USDA failed to process properly
the civil rights complaints of Native Americans. The Plaintiffs are
seeking damages in the amount of $19 billion. The Complaint defines the
potential class as:
All Native American participants in FSA's farm programs who
petitioned USDA at any time between January 1, 1981 through November
24, 1999, for relief from acts of racial discrimination visited on them
as they tried to participate in the farm programs.
To date, the Plaintiffs have identified 5 potential class agents,
396 identified potential class members, and a potential class of 19,000
Native Americans. USDA filed an Answer to the Complaint on January 24,
2000. The Plaintiffs must submit a motion to certify the class by April
12, 2000. The lawsuit is in the early stages of litigation and USDA
will continue to evaluate the merits and litigation risks as the case
moves forward.
CIVIL RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS
Question. What is the status of the civil rights settlements? If
this is what you consider a high priority, how long will it take you to
respond to lesser priorities?
Answer. When I became Secretary of Agriculture, I made a commitment
to addressing longstanding civil rights concerns in the Department. I
am very pleased with the steps we have taken to address these issues
and ask for your continued support as we continue the difficult process
of remedying past abuses.
In April 1999, the Department entered into a class action
settlement agreement with African-American farmers, providing
compensation for those who felt they had been discriminated against in
applying for USDA programs. The agreement provides for an independent
facilitator to determine if each case meets the class definition, an
independent arbitrator, and an independent adjudicator who all operate
independently of USDA. In addition, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is
responsible for coordinating most of the settlement payments in these
cases.
Thus far, over 19,000 farmers have joined the class action suit, a
much larger number than was expected. The adjudicator has made a final
determination on over 40 percent of the claims and, in about 60 percent
of these, decided in favor of the farmer. Because of the volume of
claims to be paid, there has been some difficulty in coordinating the
payments. In some cases, payments to farmers have been delayed. USDA,
DOJ and the facilitator are working to solve these problems and all
payments will be made as quickly as possible, with the goal of making
payments within 90 days of the decision.
RESOLUTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINTS
Question. The Administration's budget suggests that there is strong
support for USDA Civil Rights activities. Unfortunately, I find that
very difficult to believe when, in Montana, we have cases that have
been languishing at the Office of Civil Rights for years. What do you
intend to do to get these cases resolved in a timely manner?
Answer. I understand that nearly half of these cases have been
closed and the majority of the remaining cases are in various stages of
the investigation process. We are working diligently to resolve these
cases as quickly as possible and have taken steps to ensure that all
cases alleging discrimination in USDA programs are resolved in a timely
manner. However, conducting thorough and objective investigations is
often time-consuming. Consistent with the recommendation of our Civil
Rights Action Team, the Office of Civil Rights is being reorganized
into separate units with distinct responsibilities for overseeing the
timely and effective resolution of program and employment
discrimination complaints. USDA also launched a new tracking system for
processing program discrimination complaints in 1999.
EXPORT PROGRAM FUNDING
Question. Nearly every export program was cut. The Public Law 480
program was cut drastically, as was the Section 416 program. The export
subsidy program shows a decrease in funds of $154 million. At a time
when we are fighting for a place in the world market why are we cutting
funds for important export programs?
Answer. The budget does not represent any reduction in the
Administration's commitment to expanding overseas markets for America's
farmers and ranchers. In many cases, the budget continues export
promotion and trade programs at or near current program levels. This is
true for CCC export credit guarantees, the Market Access Program, and
Foreign Market Development Program.
In some cases, the budget reflects lower program levels for 2001,
but this is due to special considerations. For example, the Export
Enhancement Program is reduced to be consistent with the maximum
program level established in its authorizing statute as well as the
Uruguay Round export subsidy reduction commitments. Funding for the
Public Law 480 program appears to decline, but this is due primarily to
large funding balances which carried over from 1999 and have expanded
substantially the level of funding available in 2000. In the case of
section 416(b) food donations, the budget was sent to print before the
recent decision to increase this year's programming by 3 million metric
and, thus, does not reflect the full extent of this year's activity.
Question. Farm-states like Montana depend on export programs for
their agricultural economy. The Foreign Market Development (FMD)
Program and the Export Enhancement Program (EEP) especially provide
much-needed help to farmers and ranchers to create new product markets.
How can USDA cut the EEP program and give no additional funding to FMD
when President Clinton has heavily promoted global trade?
Answer. The Department has taken many actions to expand trade and
develop new markets in recent years. We expanded substantially the
level of programming under the CCC export credit guarantee programs in
response the financial crises in Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere.
Last year, we undertook a tremendous increase in food aid programming
through the authority of section 416(b) and programmed the highest
level of food aid in at least the past 25 years. We have reached two
very important agreements with China which will provide significant
benefits to America's farmers and ranchers. The President also has
taken action to reform our policy on unilateral economic sanctions in
order to provide additional sales opportunities in markets where
previously U.S. exporters could not compete. Taken together, these
actions plus others, clearly demonstrate the Administration's
commitment to expanding trade.
There is always more that can be done of course. Funding for EEP
has been reduced in order to comply with the limitation established in
its authorizing statute and to meet our commitment to reduce export
subsidies under the Uruguay Round Agreement. Nevertheless, to ensure
that EEP funds are fully used, the Administration again this year is
proposing that Congress pass legislation which would authorize the
Secretary of Agriculture to reallocate unobligated EEP funds to support
other export activities, including market development and foreign food
aid. If this authority were available, the Department would have the
option of expanding funding other export programs, one of which could
be the Foreign Market Development Program.
FSIS INSPECTOR SHORTAGE
Question. Historically, Congress has fully funded the Food Safety
Inspection Service's budget. Yet every year there is a shortage of
inspectors. These shortages have caused backups at the plant and
financial losses for producers. Our commitment to funding food safety
programs is proven every year, but if the agency is missing the mark in
projecting its needs, this problem will become worse. How can the
agency assure that it has asked for the funding necessary to hire all
needed inspectors for this year and next?
Answer. The budget is based upon historical levels of industry
growth and includes a level of funding necessary to ensure that the
Government meets its responsibilities for providing inspection services
without disruption to the industry.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS TO RURAL AREAS
Question. I have been a major proponent of bringing
telecommunications to rural areas. Bringing internet access to Montana
farmers and ranchers increases market opportunities. It provides
valuable information on agricultural research. A vast amount of
information is made available to better their farm operations and
improve their bottom line. The internet is becoming an increasingly
valuable tool for agricultural producers and Rural Utilities Service
(RUS) funding is an important part of that. How can this administration
promote development and a better way of life for agriculture and then
decrease funding for a program which offers rural areas an opportunity
to dig out of the agricultural crisis?
Answer. Since 1993, RUS has provided over $112 million in loans to
eight telecommunications borrowers in Montana and has funded 13
distance learning and telemedicine projects across the state totaling
$3.9 million in grants. We are pleased to report that the
Administration's funding request for fiscal year 2001 is actually
higher than the current fiscal year appropriation. Our infrastructure
lending levels are proposed to remain at the same level as this year,
but our distance learning and telemedicine program is requesting a $100
million increase in loans, to $300 million total, and a $5 million
increase in grants, to a total of $25 million. In addition, under the
authority of the distance learning and telemedicine loan and grant
program, the administration is seeking $100 in loans and $2 million in
grants for a pilot program to promote broadband initiatives and
internet service.
CONSERVATION SECURITY PROGRAM
Question. $1.3 billion for the conservation in the farm safety plan
is a fairly large increase over last year's budget. This funding must
not be used as the only route to provide assistance to farmers. Nor
should it be used solely for set-asides. How can USDA assure that the
conservation funding will truly be help for agricultural producers and
not an avenue to lock more land out of production?
Answer. The Conservation Security Program (CSP)--the centerpiece of
the President's initiative--is a new voluntary program targeted to
family farmers and ranchers who would receive a direct payment for
maintaining or improving their natural resources. The program is built
on the concept of helping people who actually work the land and keeping
that working land in agricultural production in a sustainable
condition. The CSP is not a cost-share program, but would be another
conservation tool in the USDA ``toolbox'' of conservation programs.
The CSP is not intended to take land out of production. In fact,
land that is currently enrolled under a Federal conservation easement
would not be eligible for the CSP, unless the easement agreement allows
agricultural production to be continued. Conservation easement or
similar long-term conservation protection programs provide payments for
a variety of purposes, including conservation, farmland protection, and
flood reduction. Under such easements, program participants must
protect and maintain the land in a prescribed manner and have agreed to
do so in exchange for the program payments. Since these lands are
adequately protected by contract, additional payments under the CSP
would not be responsible. This policy would make ineligible land
enrolled in programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program, easement
feature of the Wetlands Reserve Program, Debt Cancellation Conservation
Contract Program, Water Bank, Emergency Watershed Protection Program
floodplain easements, and similar Federal programs.
Question. Why is this Administration focusing on ``Conservation
Programs'' when what is broken in agriculture is the Market side?
Answer. The Conservation Security Program is one piece of the
policy mix in dealing the agricultural economy. It is not intended to
be connected in any way with the price of the commodities being
produced or to try to fix market issues. The CSP would build upon the
existing conservation technical infrastructure and complement other
USDA programs. Direct annual payments would be made to producers to
financially recognize them for good land stewardship that produces the
environmental benefits which we all enjoy--clean water and air, reduced
soil erosion, improved wildlife habitat, and sustainable soil. Payment
levels would be based on the comprehensiveness of producers'
conservation efforts.
LANDS LEGACY INITIATIVE
Question. The Administration's budget includes $236 million as part
of the Land's Legacy Initiative. Of that, $130 million will be used to
acquire lands for recreation, wildlife habitat, and watershed
protection. A portion will be used to establish and expand community
forests and open spaces. Has the USDA lost sight of the producer and
what the USDA was created to do? The ``A'' in USDA stands for
``agriculture'' not ``acquisition of lands''. Setting aside such sums
of money for purchasing land for wildlife habitat is not my idea of
assisting our producers. Was any thought given to offering producers
incentives based on Conservation plans? Purchasing more land will
simply take it off the tax rolls and further over burden our Counties
and the States. When did USDA go into the business of land acquisition?
What programs will go without funding or with limited funding to allow
such purchases?
Answer. The Land's Legacy Initiative contains the Farmland
Protection Program (FPP) administered by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). The FPP is beneficial to agricultural
producers because it is used to purchase conservation easements from
landowners enabling the land to remain in agricultural use rather than
being converted to other uses. This program was authorized in the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (H.R. 2854/
Public Law 104-127) for the purpose of purchasing conservation
easements or other interests on lands with prime, unique, or other
productive soil to limit non-agricultural uses of the land. The
authorization language requires that all lands in the FPP have a
conservation plan on any highly erodible lands. Other incentives based
on conservation plans are not authorized for the program at this time.
The 1996 Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
authorized $35 million for the FPP and all funds have been exhausted.
However, demand for the program continues to increase, agricultural
producers want to sell the development rights for their farms and be
assured that their family farms will remain in agricultural use for
future generations. The funding for the FPP will not impact other NRCS
conservation programs.
The Forest Service (FS) also supports the Lands Legacy Initiative
primarily through two of its program areas. The Land Acquisition
Program acquires lands, waters and related interests within the
National Forest System as authorized by the Land and Water Conservation
Fund Act of 1965 (Public Law 88-578). Many of the acquired lands are
located in congressionally designated areas such as Wilderness,
National Recreation Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers and National Scenic
Trails. Land acquisitions also improve forest management through
consolidation of boundaries and providing access to existing National
Forests and Grasslands. Land acquisition funds are provided through the
Land and Water Conservation Fund under the Department of the Interior.
In fiscal year 2001, a total of $130 million has been requested for
acquisition, management, forest and wilderness inholdings and cash
equalization.
The second FS mission area that focuses on the Lands Legacy
Initiative is State and Private Forestry. The purpose of these programs
is to maintain working landscapes, to assure the economic vitality of
communities and individuals through sustainable management of the
natural resource base on which they rely. Among the State and Private
Forestry programs, the Forest Legacy Program (FLP) conserves resource
values of forest land, emphasizing lands of regional and national
significance that are threatened with conversion to nonforest uses.
Working in partnership with State Foresters, local governments, land
trusts and interested landowners, the Forest Service supports the
acquisition, by States or local entities, of conservation easements or
fee simple title to unique lands. The program provides a cost-effective
mechanism to protect critical wildlife habitat, conserve watershed
functions, and maintain recreation opportunities.
Another State and Private Forestry program, the Urban and Community
Forestry Program works to assist local communities in managing trees,
forests, urban parks, greenspace and vegetation in order to improve
urban lands livability, and reduce sprawl that encroaches on rural
working lands. Through planning, demonstration projects, and technical
assistance, Urban and Community Forestry programs improve air quality,
diminish noise pollution, cool air, reduce erosion, and cut water
treatment costs.
Finally, the FS will also serve as a key partner with USDA's Rural-
Business Cooperative Service to make loans available through a new USDA
revolving loan program to State, local and tribal governments in order
to establish a green trust partnership that enables communities to
protect open space, limit sprawl, enhance air and water quality, and
reduce greenhouse emissions
PROJECT TERMINATIONS
Question. The Administration's budget proposes a 50 percent
increase in funding for development, production, and commercialization
of biobased products and bioenergy. This sounds like a glorious boost
to research funding. However, what would you suggest I tell the
producers of the Northern Great Plains when they ask why the funding
for agriculture research at the Sidney ARS facility was cut?
Answer. The President's budget required that very difficult choices
be made. All of the projects are evaluated within the ARS research
portfolio. Decisions are based on (1)the relevance of the research
project in addressing critical issues; (2) the availability of
sufficient funds to conduct the research; and (3) the overall impact of
the research on American agriculture. The research recommended for
elimination at Sidney is in the area of irrigated crop rotation
research. Other research activities at Sidney, such as biological
control of invasive species like leafy spurge and the wheat stem sawfly
were considered higher priority.
Question. These people are more interested in the leafy spurge and
sawfly research that acutely hit them in their wallet. There is also
$561 million for Invasive species research. This is for fiscal year
2001. Aren't leafy spurge and sawfly invasive species?
Answer. Yes. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) is an invasive weed
from the Mediterranean and Northern Europe, and wheat stem sawfly
(Cephus cinctus) is an invasive insect from Eastern Asia and China. New
natural enemies from Europe have been found for leafy spurge, and will
be introduced after testing them. This work is based out of the ARS
European Biological Control Laboratory in Montpellier, France.
Biological control of the wheat stem sawfly, based out of the ARS
Biological Control Laboratory in Beijing, China, is also progressing
well. A promising parasite of the sawfly has been introduced to
quarantine in Bozeman, in a program conducted in cooperation with
Montana State University. It will be released after testing if it
appears to be restricted in its host range to the pest.
Question. What makes them so important in 2001 and not now?
Answer. Leafy spurge and wheat stem sawfly are as important now as
they will be in fiscal year 2001. Funding for these projects is not
proposed for termination.
Question. Why cut these programs one year and boost them the next?
Answer. As stated above, funding for research on leafy spurge and
wheat stem sawfly will continue.
GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH
Question. What do you suggest I tell the producers that depend on
these grass roots programs when they see $32 million being set aside
for Global Change research?
Answer. ARS research on global change addresses challenges that
face agricultural producers and provides a wide array of environmental
benefits. Research on rangelands indicates that woody species such as
mesquite are replacing the more desirable grasses. Among the possible
causes being investigated are altered climate and increasing
atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. ARS
research shows that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide
stimulate growth of some weeds more than crops. Work on managing crops,
rangelands, and soils to sequester carbon dioxide into plants and soils
increases soil organic matter, which benefits crop productivity,
decreases erosion by wind and water, and suppresses leaching of
agricultural chemicals into waterways. Other ARS researchers are
working on ways to use weather and climate models to predict and avoid
risks to agriculture associated with extreme weather events.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Question. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Buildings and
Facilities budget was cut by $14 million. This concerns me greatly. As
agricultural producers look for new ways to increase profits and
enhance production, it is extremely important that they have facilities
available to conduct research and hold classes. As an example, I was
extremely pleased that last year $530,000 was included for a new
building at Fort Keogh in Miles City, MT. This agricultural research
station had been operating on a shoe-string and is in major need of a
new facility. The new building will help sheep and cattle ranchers
learn about new methods and utilize agricultural research. If we hope
to ever dig agriculture out of the hole it's in, innovation must be
encouraged. Can the USDA find a way to restore the funding necessary
for new innovation in agriculture?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 Federal budget submitted by the
President recommends a number of new initiatives to address changing
priorities facing agriculture and the American consumer. The research
budget proposed for ARS reflects an increase of $97.8 million in
support of new research initiatives in emerging and exotic diseases in
plants and animals; agricultural genomics and genetics; human
nutrition; invasive species; food safety; food quality protection; air
quality; biobased products and new non-food and commercial uses of
agricultural commodities; global climate change; integrated ecological
sciences; and agricultural information dissemination.
Examples of new innovations that would result from expanded
research initiatives proposed in fiscal year 2001 include developing
new methods for the biological control of invasive weeds and other
pests important to agriculture; finding new markets for biobased
feedstocks and products to increase economic opportunities for
agricultural producers and rural communities; developing new ways to
increase carbon storage in soils and determining ways to predict and
investigate climate change impacts on agriculture; improving the
economically desirable traits of livestock, poultry and aquaculture
species; and expanding diagnostic capabilities to prevent acts of
biological and chemical terrorism on U. S. agriculture and a host of
other new innovations.
MARKET INFORMATION PROGRAM
Question. The Economic Research Service (ERS) budget was cut by $10
million. ERS provides important market information to agricultural
producers. Many Montana producers rely on reports issued by ERS for
cattle numbers and market reports. Again, the USDA is not giving
producers a fighting chance to make their way in global markets. How
will you change this?
Answer. The agency's request for 2001 is $55.4 million, a net
decrease of $10 million from the 2000 appropriation of $65.4 million.
The change consists of four parts: a $1 million increase for an
initiative on structural changes and concentration in food and
agriculture; a $.5 million increase to support a global research and
outreach initiative; a $.7 million increase for a study on carbon
sequestration; and a $12.2 million decrease for evaluations of food
stamp, child nutrition, and WIC programs. Funding for these evaluation
studies in 2001 is included in the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)
budget. The net decline has no implications for the ERS market
information program. ERS continues work closely with other agencies in
supporting the USDA market information program and meeting the needs of
American producers. The agency continues to publish a monthly report on
the livestock sector outlook. This report includes analysis of major
market developments, as well as key data on cattle, hogs, poultry, and
dairy. ERS has an active program of research supporting the cattle
industry and the work of other USDA agencies which relates to cattle.
Examples include work on cattle cycles and our role in developing the
Department's new price reporting program.
BIOTECHNOLOGY
Question. In regards to Frito Lay's recent announcement that they
will no longer use genetically modified corn in response to consumer
concerns--is USDA working with these companies and processors to make
sure that the public is receiving the proper information on food safety
and the potential benefits of technological advancements in genetically
enhanced crops?
Answer. USDA's regulatory processes are open and transparent and
the information on the safety reviews undertaken by USDA's Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) are made available to the
public. Companies that are regulated by APHIS, or by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are
well aware of the extensive reviews that biotechnology products have
undergone. Food manufacturers have spoken with me and other USDA
officials regarding their concerns on these issues. In my view, we do
not have a role in trying to influence companies as they decide how to
respond to what they perceive to be their customers' demands, whether
domestic or foreign. In addition, the responsibility for assuring the
safety of food falls to FDA.
However, we do believe that we need to devote more energy to
demonstrate to the public our commitment to ensure that concerns are
addressed. USDA has developed a web site on biotechnology to address
key questions for the public and we have formed an internal
Biotechnology Communications Committee to ensure that our various
agencies provide consistent messages on topics that arise. This group
is also working with the communications offices at FDA and EPA to
improve interagency coordination in public outreach.
Question. Additionally, Frito Lay is the largest user of cotton
seed oil in the U.S. 60 percent of cotton seed oil is produced from
genetically enhanced crops. It is past time to give some serious
thought on how to address biotechnology. What plans does USDA have to
do so?
Answer. A key responsibility we have as a Department is to defend
the integrity of our regulatory processes and decisions. This is a role
our regulatory and policy officials perform in public meetings
throughout the U.S., as well as in bilateral and multilateral fora. It
is vital for our continued credibility that we continue in this role,
and are seen as balanced and impartial, rather than as simply pro-
biotechnology.
There has been increased media attention to various potential risks
posed by biotechnology and there have been questions raised by some
about the adequacy of the existing Federal regulatory system for
biotechnology products. It is to be expected that, as for any new
technology, questions will continue to arise. To ensure that we can
address, in an authoritative manner, any scientific issues that may
arise, I have asked the National Research Council of the National
Academy of Sciences to set up a Standing Committee on Biotechnology.
The membership on this committee and its charge will be announced
shortly. The first task of the Standing Committee will be to examine
the risk assessment process and the assumptions underlying it as used
by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in its safety
reviews of biotechnology products for agricultural use. The Standing
Committee will in that study consider whether we are addressing all of
the relevant scientific issues appropriately, and identify any areas
where USDA might improve its regulatory oversight based on the most
recent scientific knowledge. It will also consider how most
appropriately to monitor biotechnology products that have been approved
for commercial use.
A variety of other issues have been raised by critics either of the
technology itself, or of some of its key agribusiness proponents. A
number of these complex questions need to be aired in a balanced public
forum and the implications raised carefully considered, in order both
to shed light on the public debate and to provide me with important
recommendations to help guide future USDA activities. On February 4,
2000, USDA announced the membership on our new Advisory Committee on
Agricultural Biotechnology which will address these issues.
Representatives of the Grocery Manufacturers of America and other
groups along the food production and distribution chain are represented
on the committee. The committee will meet for the first time on March
29-30, 2000, in Washington, DC.
Additionally, we believe that it is essential that there be
accurate information available about the economic impacts on farmers
who use biotechnology-derived crops, and on the environmental effects
of their use in terms of inputs such as pesticides. We are increasing
our data-gathering efforts in these areas. As niche consumer markets
develop for identity-preserved non-biotechnology commodity streams or
value-added biotechnology-derived products, USDA will have a role in
certifying the testing methods used to verify the contents of a
shipment through its Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards
Administration, and validating the identity of value-added products
through its marketing and regulatory agencies.
WHEAT LOAN DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS
Question. In the last agricultural appropriations bill,
Representative Lucas included language which would provide an LDP for
grazing wheat. Although grazing wheat is not mechanically harvesting
the crop as the 1996 Farm Bill specifies, the USDA did set a precedent
when they allowed an LDP for silage. When does the USDA expect to have
the program in place to give an LDP to producers that graze their wheat
crop?
Answer. The language you refer to was in the conference report and
not in the bill. It is my understanding that the current law, however,
only allows USDA to make LDP payments to producers who actually harvest
their loan eligible crops. The Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 provides for marketing assistance loans with respect
to certain commodities that are produced on farms containing eligible
cropland covered by production flexibility contracts and on any
production of extra long staple cotton or oilseeds. LDP's are an option
available under the marketing assistance loan program that allows a
producer to receive an LDP from CCC provided the producer agrees to
forgo obtaining a marketing assistance loan. Marketing assistance loans
and LDP's are made on the actual harvested production of the commodity.
Producers who do not harvest a crop do not have a commodity to pledge
as collateral for a loan. Therefore, a producer is not eligible for an
LDP on a commodity that was utilized as pasture.
In short, with respect to the conference report language request to
include wheat acres utilized for pasture to the commodities eligible to
receive an LDP, my understanding is that I do not have the authority to
base marketing assistance loans, and subsequently LDP's on anything
other than actual harvested production. Such a change would require
legislative action by Congress.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
SETTLEMENT OF PROGRAM CIVIL RIGHTS CASES
Question. I continue to hear of problems at USDA related to civil
rights issues. Please provide the status of ongoing issues regarding
the civil rights settlement with plaintiff Black farmers and any other
major issues before the Department including those involving Native
Americans.
Answer. I am committed to ensuring the civil rights of USDA's
customers and employees. I am very pleased with the steps we have taken
to address these issues and ask for your continued support as we
continue the difficult process of remedying past abuses.
In April 1999, the Department entered into a class action
settlement agreement with African-American farmers, providing
compensation and closure for those who felt they had been discriminated
against in applying for USDA programs. The agreement provides for an
independent facilitator to determine if each case meets the class
definition, an independent arbitrator, and an independent adjudicator
who all operate independently of USDA. In addition, the Department of
Justice (DOJ) is responsible for coordinating most of the settlement
payments in these cases.
Over 19,000 farmers have joined the class action suit, a much
larger number than was expected. The court-appointed adjudicator has
made a final determination on over 40 percent of the claims and, in
about 60 percent of these, decided in favor of the farmer. Because of
the volume of claims to be paid, there has been some difficulty in
coordinating the payments. In some cases, payments to farmers have been
delayed. USDA, DOJ and the facilitator are working to solve these
problems and all payments will be made as quickly as possible, with the
goal of making payments within 90 days of the decision.
Regarding other major issues, I have been told that the Department
is working to resolve 13 employment-related and 4 program-related class
action cases. One of these is a complaint alleging discrimination
against Native Americans. The complaint was filed on November 24, 1999
and an answer to the complaint was filed by USDA on January 24, 2000.
The class would be comprised of all Native American participants in
Farm Service Agency programs who complained to USDA about
discrimination in farm programs between January 1, 1981, and November
24, 1999.
CIVIL RIGHTS INVESTIGATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Question. Please provide details involving the Department's ongoing
activities regarding civil rights investigation and enforcement as they
relate to both client and employee issues.
Answer. Since last year, the Office of Civil Rights (CR) has
developed procedural manuals and standard operating procedures and
realigned the program and employment divisions. All CR program
complaint files are being reviewed to determine priority for
investigation and appropriate resolution. CR will provide management
diversity training to all USDA managers in headquarters and each agency
will provide similar training to their managers in the field.
Consistent with the recommendation of our Civil Rights Action Team, the
Office of Civil Rights is being reorganized into separate units with
distinct responsibilities for overseeing the timely and effective
resolution of program and employment discrimination complaints. USDA
also launched a new tracking system for processing program
discrimination complaints in 1999
The Program Compliance Division has scheduled evaluations of agency
civil rights programs to assess whether the offices are properly
staffed and to determine the level of enforcement of applicable civil
rights statutes, regulations, and policies. I understand that four
agencies will be evaluated this year: the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Rural Development, the Foreign Agricultural
Service, and the Office of Inspector General. Employment compliance
reviews are scheduled or are being conducted throughout the Department
to identify any violations of employee civil rights. All agency heads
were evaluated on civil rights performance during fiscal year 1999, and
there was improved performance in all but two agencies. Over 90
disciplinary actions, including removal, have been taken against
employees for discrimination or misconduct related to civil rights.
We have nearly eliminated the backlog of more than 1,000 old
program civil rights complaints. We are providing the support needed to
resolve the cases under the class action lawsuit brought by Black
farmers (Pigford v. Glickman). The adjudicator has made decisions in
about half of the cases filed to date.
USE OF SECTION 2501 FUNDS
Question. Please provide a detailed analysis of your historical,
current, and projected (fiscal year 2001) use of section 2501 funds
including the results from such use (both results sought and realized).
Answer. Congress began funding the 2501 program in fiscal year 1993
to provide training and technical assistance to small and disadvantaged
farmers. The initial funding level was $1 million and has increased to
$3 million on an annual basis. In fiscal year 2000, $5.2 million of
additional funding has been made available from the Fund for Rural
America. The fiscal year 2001 Budget requests a program level of $10
million to fund the program at the level recommended by the Civil
Rights Action Team's Report. Additional information follows.
[The information follows:]
Fiscal year 2000 is the final year for 23 of the 26 projects that
have been funded. Final project reports will be submitted in the first
quarter of fiscal year 2001. I am particularly encouraged by projects
such as those at the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land
Assistance Fund in Georgia and Tuskegee University in Alabama. They
have provided outreach and technical assistance that has increased
ownership of farms and ranches by socially disadvantaged citizens.
For example, Georgia reported 111 counties with a population of
black farmers. Statewide, from 1992 to 1997, there was an increase of
95 black farmers. Eighteen of these counties were in the 2501 program
and they reported an increase of 66 black farmers. Thus, the 2501
projects contributed to 73 percent of the total increase in black
farmers in Georgia. Nearly all counties reporting increases in black
farmers had double-digit percentage increases.
In Alabama, 8 of the 12 project counties showed an increase in
black farm numbers between 1992 and 1997. In Bullock, Lowndes, and Hale
Counties the increases were 46 percent, 42 percent, and 25 percent,
respectively. USDA intends to build on these successes of the
Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund and Tuskegee
University.
For fiscal year 2001, USDA plans new outreach projects. We are
currently preparing a request for proposals for new projects to be
published in the Federal Register. We plan to evaluate proposals by the
end of the fiscal year so we will be ready to make awards upon
enactment of fiscal year 2001 appropriations. The planned Minority Farm
Register and Small Farms Register and the increased agreements with
community organizations will also help the program meet its objectives.
FUND FOR RURAL AMERICA
Question. The budget justification indicates that $60 million in
budget authority is being obligated under the Fund for Rural America in
fiscal year 2000. Of that amount, $5.2 million is being added to the
amount already appropriated for section 2501 activities. It has been
brought to my attention that interest has been expressed by the
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff (an 1890 Institution) to further
develop a demonstration farm in the vicinity. I also understand that
you visited this site in 1998. Would funding provided through section
2501 be appropriate for use in development of the facility as
envisioned by UAPB, or would any other program included under the Fund
for Rural America?
Answer. The University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff partnered with the
Natural Resources Conservation Service to establish a National Wetland
Water Management Center on a 870-acre farm in Lonoke, Arkansas. I
visited this Center in 1998. Successful technology from this farm is
transferred to the State's small farmers, many of whom are socially
disadvantaged. Five small farmers who are participants in the
University's 2501 project are also demonstration farmers with the
Center.
Section 2501 provides funds for training and technical assistance
to small and disadvantaged farmers. In April 2000,the Office of
Outreach intends to solicit new proposals for 2501 grants to be awarded
in fiscal year 2001, subject to appropriations. Demonstration projects
like this one, may well meet the requirements for a grant under the
2501 program and we encourage all proposals.
USER FEES
Question. The fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Act includes language
requiring information to be submitted with the budget in the event
unauthorized user fee revenues are assumed in the overall budget. The
budget proposal for the Agriculture Subcommittee includes $600 million
in such fees, most of which are related to USDA programs. In the event
these fees are not authorized, what items within the proposed budget do
you want reduced in order to keep our spending within prescribed
limits?
Answer. The budget is based upon a current law request. Should the
authority for user fees not be approved by the authorizing committee
this current law request would not have to be revised.
COMMISSION ON 21ST CENTURY AGRICULTURE
Question. The 1996 Farm Bill included a provision authorizing the
Commission on 21st Century Agriculture to examine and recommend options
for farm policy to replace the current farm law. What is the status of
this commission and when should its report be released?
Answer. The Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture has
been actively meeting since February 1998. Most recently, the
Commission met January 27-28, 2000, in Washington, D.C. with policy
experts from around the country to discuss the future of agricultural
policy in the United States. The next meeting is scheduled for March 7,
2000. The Commission and staff are working to develop recommendations
for future farm policy and expect to publish a report January 1, 2001
pursuant to Sec. 183b and Sec. 184b of the Federal Agricultural
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.
Question. The 1996 Farm Bill included a provision authorizing the
Commission on 21st Century Agriculture to examine and recommend options
for farm policy to replace the current farm law. What is the status of
this commission and when should its report be released?
Answer. The Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture has
been actively meeting since February 1998. Most recently, the
Commission met January 27-28, 2000, in Washington, D.C. with policy
experts from around the country to discuss the future of agricultural
policy in the United States. The next meeting is scheduled for March 7,
2000. The Commission and staff are working to develop recommendations
for future farm policy and expect to publish a report January 1, 2001
pursuant to Sec. 183b and Sec. 184b of the Federal Agricultural
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.
FARM*A*SYST/HOME*A*SYST
Question. The Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst program funded by CSREES has
proven itself to be an integral component of Departmental strategies to
improve water quality and protect the environment through its national
network of state Farm*A*Syst programs. Congress has recognized the
value of this program by directing CSREES to fund the program by name
including funding for national headquarters in Madison, WI and for
grants to states from the water quality accounts. While we recognize
that the Integrated Accounts are generally competitive, the intent of
Congress to specifically fund the existing Farm*A*Syst program is
clear. Still, CSREES has thus far refused to provide the funding for
this valuable program as directed by Congress. Please inform this
Committee how you interpret the direction of Congress to fund the
Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst program at no less than fiscal year 1999 levels
and how you intend to comply with congressional direction.
Answer. Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-185) provides the
authority to award grants to colleges and universities in accordance
with section 1404 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3103) on a competitive basis for
integrated agricultural research, education, and extension projects.
CSREES is finalizing the fiscal year 2000 Water Quality Program Request
for Proposals (RFPs) in which the national and state Farm*A*Syst/
Home*A*Syst providers may compete openly for grants. The funds
available under Sec. 406 of the RFP far exceed those spent on
Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst in fiscal year 1999.
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
Question. I have long been a supporter of the Sustainable
Agriculture Research and Education programs and I applaud the
Department for budgeting additional funding for the SARE program for
the first time in many years. For too long this valuable program has
received inadequate funding and inadequate support from the Department,
relative to spending on research for conventional agriculture. However,
as you know, sustainable agriculture includes a wide range of cultural,
biological and other practices designed to ensure that farms are both
economically and environmentally sustainable. While I strongly support
research and education to support organic agriculture, I am concerned
that the Administration's proposal is limited solely to organic when
the field of sustainable agriculture is much broader. Why did the
Administration limit its SARE increase to organic when the research
needs of the broader system of sustainable agriculture is in equal need
of new research and education funding?
Answer. The SARE program has supported over 200 projects related to
organic agriculture. The increase requested in the fiscal year 2001
President's Budget for SARE will enable the agency to focus all of the
current funding to the needs of the broader system of sustainable
agriculture while targeting organic agriculture through the increase.
The existing SARE program has significant experience with organic
farming and marketing issues under the larger umbrella of sustainable
agriculture, and an innovative structure. The SARE structure consists
of regional organization with strong stakeholder involvement;
integration of research with extension and outreach; multi-
institutional collaboration; and a commitment to on-farm research that
is well-suited to the involvement of organic stakeholders and to
addressing organic farming and marketing research and extension in a
holistic manner. The SARE initiative on organic research and extension
will serve an expanding and increasingly active constituency of
producers and consumers.
BIO-TERRORISM
Question. I understand the Federal government is developing an
ongoing strategy for defense against bio-terrorist activities. Please
outline the role of USDA in this effort.
Answer. The U.S. agricultural food and fiber production system is
uniquely vulnerable to deliberate introduction of highly infectious
diseases and pests, particularly those of foreign origin. USDA has
successfully prevented widespread damage caused by numerous accidental
introductions of non-endemic plant and animal pests and diseases in the
past by rapidly responding to outbreaks and implementing appropriate
control measures. The Department is participating in an inter-agency
effort regarding bio-terrorist threats affecting agriculture.
METHYL BROMIDE
Question. Please provide information regarding USDA activities
regarding the search for a methyl bromide alternative.
Answer. The USDA is working with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), States, industries, including the Crop Protection
Coalition, to address high priority needs of commodities and products
in both soil and postharvest fumigation. Co-chaired by ARS, USDA
participates in a USDA/EPA methyl bromide working group, established by
the Secretary Glickman and EPA Administrator, to review potential
alternatives for efficacy and EPA registration status. A long list of
action items has been identified relative to registration and some
registration problems were recently resolved due to that effort.
[The information follows:]
Agricultural Research Service Research Program: In 1999, ARS
reviewed its methyl bromide research program with growers and other
methyl bromide users in meetings in Florida and California to receive
input on the methyl bromide research program to make sure it is
properly focused on the highest priority problems. In addition, ARS
organized a field trip of USDA and EPA personnel to study issues
particular to the floral and nursery industries in California. ARS also
provides a representative to the Montreal Protocol Methyl Bromide
Technical Options Committee to conduct assessments of the availability
and efficacy of methyl bromide alternatives and to provide technical
advise to the Montreal Protocol on related issues.
ARS conducts research at 20 Federal laboratories to find
alternatives to present soil fumigation and postharvest uses of methyl
bromide as follows:
At Weslaco, Texas, and at Orlando and Miami, Florida, ARS is
developing alternative quarantine treatments for citrus, vegetables,
and subtropical fruits, as well as studying ways to minimize phytotoxic
effects of these treatments. Emphasis is placed on pest-free zones,
irradiation, heat and cold treatments, and advanced quarantine pest
detection systems.
At the Hilo/Honolulu, Hawaii, ARS laboratory, alternatives are
being developed for tropical fruit infested with fruit flies,
especially Mediterranean and oriental fruit flies, to allow export of
Hawaii-grown fruit to foreign markets and mainland United States, and
to protect mainland United States from introduction of pests present in
Hawaii. This research focuses on irradiation, heat and cold commodity
treatments and on techniques to eradicate fruit flies.
At Manhattan, Kansas, ARS is developing alternatives to use of
methyl bromide to fumigate flour mills, food processing plants, and
other structures for insect infestations. Building heat-ups alone and
in combination with other treatments such as diatomaceous earth are the
approaches being researched.
Research to develop alternatives to soil fumigation with methyl
bromide to control pathogens and weeds is conducted at 15 ARS
locations. Methyl bromide is used to some extent on more than 100
crops, although nearly 80 percent of all the preplant methyl bromide
soil fumigation is used on just four crops--strawberries, tomatoes,
ornamentals/nursery crops, and peppers. Alternatives to methyl bromide
soil fumigation include host plant resistance, biological control,
alternative chemicals, and different cultural practices, either alone
or in combination.
At Washington, D.C., biological control and alternative, naturally-
occurring chemicals are being evaluated as alternatives to methyl
bromide for control of soilborne diseases of ornamentals.
At Beltsville, Maryland, biological control agents are being
identified and their mode of action determined to improve control of
diseases of vegetables.
At Kearneysville, West Virginia, natural plant volatiles are being
evaluated as alternative fumigants and compost and other cultural
methods identified for disease and weed control.
At Fresno, California, integrated strategies are being tested that
involve host plant resistance, biological control and alternative
chemicals for control of disease, nematodes and insects of
strawberries, grapes, tree fruits, and vegetables. The application of
alternative chemicals using irrigation systems is being tested.
At Riverside, California, research is under way to reduce methyl
bromide emission in strawberry and vegetable production and to track
the movement and degradation of methyl bromide and alternative
fumigants.
At Davis, California, work is directed at using host plant
resistance and cultural modifications to manage diseases in tree fruits
and nuts.
At Salinas, California, research is aimed at finding biological and
cultural control methods to manage strawberry and vegetable diseases,
and characterize the ecology of pathogens.
At Wenatchee, Washington, disease problems in tree fruit production
are being identified, and strategies for their control are being
sought.
At Corvallis, Oregon, biological controls are being investigated
for diseases of ornamentals and nursery crops, and the role of
beneficial microorganisms in disease and weed management is being
explored.
At Stoneville, Mississippi, biological control agents to control
weeds in vegetables are being identified and characterized.
At Tifton, Georgia, the emphasis is on finding cultural methods and
alternative chemical treatments and integrated strategies for control
of nematodes and diseases on vegetables, and on identifying alternative
herbicides for control of weeds.
At Byron, Georgia, research is aimed at improving cultural
practices and host resistance to manage nematodes and diseases in
peaches and other tree fruits.
At Gainesville, Florida, work is under way to find alternative soil
treatments, such as solarization, flooding, or heating, to control
pests, weeds, and pathogens in vegetables.
At Orlando, Florida, integrated methods involving biological
control, cultural practices, and alternative chemicals are being
developed for control of weeds, nematodes and diseases in tomatoes,
peppers, and other vegetables.
At Charleston, South Carolina, alternative fumigants, host-plant
resistance, and cultural practices are being explored as alternative
disease management strategies in vegetables and fruits. The survival
and spread of soilborne pathogens as influenced by other microorganisms
and the environment is being determined.
In addition, field-scale validation projects that were begun in
fiscal year 1996 were continued in Fresno, California, and Orlando,
Florida, to determine if the most promising experimental alternatives
were effective, economically feasible, and adaptable to commercial
production systems of strawberries, vegetables and perennial crops.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Research Program: Research dollars in Hatch, Special Research Grants,
and NRI was $298,000 for fiscal year 1998 and $778,000 for fiscal year
1999. It is estimated that $2.8 million will support methyl bromide
activities in fiscal year 2000. The Methyl Bromide Transition Program
is a $2 million competitive grants program designed to support the
discovery and implementation of practical pest management alternatives
for commodities affected by the phase out of methyl bromide. This new
program will focus on short to intermediate term solutions for all
commodities at risk using either combinations of presently available
technologies or newly developed practices. The emphasis of the new
funding will be towards integrated management approaches, their
development and implementation, including research, education and
extension activities on all commodities at risk.
USDA's Interregional Research Project No. 4, (IR-4) began
addressing the methyl bromide issue in 1998. A team was formed to work
on discovery and development of safe products and new technologies that
have the potential to fill the void in tomato and strawberry production
created when methyl bromide is phased out. Much work has already been
done and is ongoing with the standard products currently used to
control the same spectrum of pests as methyl bromide. A weakness of all
of the standard products is poor or no control of annual and perennial
weeds. IR-4 has ongoing programs to address this for tomato producers
and a new program is evaluating materials for crop safety and control
of yellow and purple nutsedge in tomatoes. Weed control in strawberries
is also being approached. IR-4 is also evaluating new, unregistered
products as methyl bromide alternatives for strawberries and tomatoes.
Strawberry field trials began this fall and tomato trials are scheduled
for early in 2000.
METHYL BROMIDE
Question. What changes in agricultural production and marketing
have occurred in the private sector in anticipation of the loss of
methyl bromide?
Answer. Currently, there are no substitutes that are as efficient
or cost effective as methyl bromide. Continuing research and field
trails of alternatives will provide substitutes when the phase-out in
completed in 2005. However, without methyl bromide, some production
changes may take place in areas of the U.S. where alternatives are not
cost effective for production of certain crops. There are some new
materials in field trials at this time that hold promise as replacement
chemicals but are not commercially available at this time.
USDA data are not currently available to show changes in production
and marketing due to the anticipated loss of methyl bromide. Economic
models predict production declines and acreage shifts for such crops as
tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, watermelons, and strawberries in
California and Florida if methyl bromide is no longer available. The
U.S. is scheduled to reduce methyl bromide consumption by 25 percent in
1999, 50 percent in 2001, 70 percent in 2003, and 100 percent in 2005.
USDA data from 1997 to 1999 show stable or increasing acreage and
production of affected crops. USDA estimates of methyl bromide-treated
tomato, pepper, strawberry, and eggplant acreage in Florida were stable
or increasing from 1992 to 1998 (available in even years only), while
methyl bromide-treated strawberry acreage in California decreased
between 1996 and 1998.
MINOR USE PESTICIDES
Question. Please outline the efforts of USDA to assist in the
development and availability of minor use pesticides.
Answer. The Pest Management for Minor Crops (IR-4) Program is a
highly effective effort between the State Agricultural Experiments
Stations, CSREES, and the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). IR-4
provides the national leadership, coordination, and focal point for
obtaining data to support the regulatory clearance through the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for pesticides and biological
control agents for specialty food crops such as fruits and vegetables
as well as non-food crops like ornamentals.
In many cases, the agricultural chemical industry cannot
economically justify the time and expense required to conduct the
necessary research for products with limited market potential. With
assistance from IR-4, producers of small acreage crops such as
vegetables, fruits, nuts, and herbs have expedited access to pest
control products. In order to accomplish the above, a four step process
has been developed for food crops. Step one involves research
prioritization. Because of limited resources, IR-4 requests and
receives input from stakeholders on potential research projects. Yearly
workshops are conducted that involve growers, commodity organizations,
university research and extension specialists, EPA staff, and industry
representatives to determine which projects are the most critical to
minor crop agriculture. Step two is research planning. Research
protocols are written after careful review and comments from
stakeholders. Step three is research implementation. A typical IR-4
program consists of both field and laboratory phases. For the field
work, researchers apply the crop protection chemical to the target crop
according to the experimental protocol. The crop is harvested and
transferred to the laboratories where the chemical residues in the
crop, if any, are determined. All field and laboratory research is
conducted under EPA Good Laboratory Practices. Step four is data
submission and approval. The data are critically reviewed and formatted
into a regulatory package and submitted to the EPA for the review. If
appropriate, the EPA will approve the submission and grant a pesticide
food tolerance to support registration of the use on the minor crop.
The process for ornamental crops is similar, however, these crops do
not require a pesticide tolerance.
Question. Please provide any economic data available regarding the
cost to producers due to the unavailability of these products.
Answer. At this time, data and/or models are not available to allow
for development of a comprehensive economic analysis of the impact of
the unavailability of pesticides that are needed for minor crops. In
total, minor crops farm gate value is $40 billion or 40 percent of
total U.S. crop value.
IR-4 has a few specific examples of economic impact as a result of
their work. IR-4 has developed and submitted data to EPA for the insect
growth regulator tebufenozide on blueberries, blackberries,
raspberries, canola, cranberry, mint, and turnip. This chemical
received the 1998 Presidential Green Chemistry Award because of its
unique ability to control problem pests without damaging non-target
organisms and the environment. Many consider this Reduced Risk
pesticide an efficacious alternative for many high risk pesticides
which are under EPA scrutiny associated with the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA). The Cranberry Institute has estimated the use of
tebufenozide will provide economic benefits ranging from $17 to $35
million annually depending on the severity of the target pest
infestations.
In an another example, the clearance of the herbicide pyridate on
the ultra-minor crop garbanzo beans--chickpea, grown on only 15,000
acres in the states of Washington, Oregon and Idaho has resulted in a
net revenue increase of more than $3.3 million on the part of
producers. This single registration combined with changes in government
farm programs has allowed garbanzo beans to become an important
rotational crop in certain production systems in the Pacific Northwest
region.
Finally, IR-4 is currently assisting sweet corn growers in
Wisconsin and other North Central states with the clearance of the
herbicide glufosinate. IR-4's data has supported an EPA-approved
Emergency Exemption. The emergency exist due to the cancellation of
cyanazine and use restrictions of other triazine herbicides to protect
the ground water. The University of Wisconsin has estimated that
without the emergency approval of glufosinate for Wisconsin sweet corn,
losses to Wisconsin farmers would exceed $2.9 million and the loss to
Wisconsin overall economy would be much greater.
As EPA continues to implement FQPA, we expect to see many older
chemical pesticides come under increases scrutiny. A likely outcome is
the reduction or elimination of existing tolerances. The impacts on
minor crops are potentially severe because there are few registered
alternatives. The IR-4 program mitigates these impacts by helping to
assure that modern pest management tools are available to minor crop
producers.
MINOR USE PESTICIDES
Question. Please describe your ongoing collaboration with EPA
regarding the development of minor use pesticides in order to protect
producers, consumers, and the environment.
Answer. Though IR-4 has worked closely with EPA since the Agency's
inception, the two groups started some new initiatives in 1998 to build
better coordination and cooperation. First an EPA/IR-4 Technical
Working Group was formed. This group meets quarterly and focuses on a
number of important issues involving better productivity and efficiency
in handling minor crop registrations. Some highlights of this
collaboration effort are noted as follows:
For the first time in IR-4's history, a three-year work plan with a
schedule of all of IR-4's projects and petitions has been submitted to
the EPA. This will allow the Agency to schedule their petition review
process more efficiently, more importantly it will allow EPA to
schedule and review IR-4 submissions along with the submissions from
industry on the minor crops.
EPA and IR-4 have developed a standard format summary for IR-4 data
submissions. This summary has saved EPA significant time in reviewing
IR-4 submission, with a savings estimated as much as two months, and
eliminating EPA funding of expensive external contract review to
develop a similar summary.
IR-4 proposed to EPA that they utilize existing IR-4 and industry
data to establish crop group tolerances for most minor uses of the
reduced-risk pesticides, spinosad and azoxystrobin. EPA has approved
IR-4's proposals. This resulted in direct savings of over $1 million
for IR-4 in field residue and laboratory analysis expenses in 1999.
These resources were directed to developing solutions for other import
minor crop pest control needs. More importantly, EPA approval will
allow grower access to these two new materials almost three years
earlier than under normal circumstances.
EPA has also developed new procedures directions in order to allow
IR-4 to have certain minor uses classified as Reduced-Risk. Prior to
the modification, industry was required to submit a comprehensive
justification document. The new process is streamlined requiring only
pertinent data in order to allow EPA to make the classification.
Finally, one of the IR-4 scientists has been assigned to EPA,
working on the staff of the Director of the Office of Pesticide
Programs. That IR-4 scientist provides day to day linkages from IR-4 to
EPA, including working closely with EPA's Minor Use Team Leader and
Ombudsperson to support efforts to address minor crop policy issues and
challenges brought about by FQPA implementation.
DAIRY FORAGE/INTEGRATED FARMING SYSTEMS
Question. For a number of years, funding has been provided through
the ARS Dairy Forage Center in Madison, WI for research related to
Integrated Farming Systems. In fiscal year 1997 a cooperative agreement
was executed between ARS and the University of Wisconsin and the
Michael Fields Institute, a non-profit research organization, for work
related to Integrated Farming Systems. Please provide information
showing the level of funding provided for Integrated Farming Systems
each year since fiscal year 1997 including an explanation of activities
by ARS, the University of Wisconsin, and the Michael Fields Institute.
Answer. The levels of funding assigned to the Integrated Farming
Systems research area conducted by or funded through the U.S. Dairy
Forage Systems Research Center (USDFRC) by year are as follows:
$500,000 in fiscal year 1997; $497,100 in fiscal year 1998; $490,900 in
fiscal year 1999, and $501,600 in fiscal year 2000. ARS, the University
of Wisconsin (UW) and the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute (MFAI)
all conducted research under these funds. The USDFRC has provided
funding for this project, conducted research, and participated in the
annual meetings of cooperators. The UW provides leadership and conducts
research. The MFAI conducts research on the project, publishes a
quarterly newsletter and a Profitable Farming Update Series (2500
subscribers), and cooperates on the development and testing of a
Software Decision Making Program ``Crop Rotation Options Program''
(CROP).
Question. Provide information explaining specific actions taken by
the ARS Dairy Forage Laboratory since 1997 in support of the Integrated
Farming System's mission.
Answer. The U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center (USDFRC) conducted
research on (1) developing low-input management of intensive grazing
systems, giving emphasis to procedures that provide needed supplements
to growing and lactating dairy cattle without nutrient buildup in
pastures and loss to the environment; (2) evaluating and developing
cropping systems that provide quality feed for profitable dairy farms
in an environmentally safe manner; (3) developing strategies for
managing nutrients in crop-livestock systems with special emphasis on
animal manure to, at minimal cost, maximize nutrient recycling and
minimize environmental risks, (4) investigating surface loss of
phosphorus and nitrogen from pasture paddocks that have been managed in
different ways, and (5) cooperating in a multi-agency/institute project
on farm diversification--``Small Grains Initiative'', the goal is to
incorporate small grains and legumes into a normal corn-soybean
rotation while considering production and marketing objectives.
Question. Please provide materials showing ongoing activities at
the Dairy Forage Center including what is proposed for fiscal year
2001.
Answer. The activities given in the answer to the previous question
related directly to the Integrated Farming Systems mission. The Dairy
Forage Center conducts several lines of basic research that help to
support the systems research. These lines address (1) inefficient soil
fertility management that reduces forage quality and yield and
adversely affects water quality; (2) inability to fully exploit the
plant genetic potential and manipulate the genetics by environment
interactions for improved forage quality; (3) excessive harvest and
storage loss of forage nutrients; (4) plant cell walls limit the
consumption and digestion of forages; (5) excessive loss of forage
protein during digestion in the rumen; (6) insufficient integration of
research information to allow field evaluation of management options
(systems approach) in the dairy forage enterprise.
Additionally, for fiscal year 2001, using currently available
funds, new thrusts will be initiated in the areas of (1) evaluating how
modification in forage phenolic and fiber affect the production and
utilization of forage crops by dairy animals and the cycling of
nitrogen and carbon on dairy farms and (2) the development of forage
legumes that are productive, pest resistant, persistent, non-
estrogenic, high-quality, and compatible in mixtures with grass for
silage, hay and grazing.
Full funding of the President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for
bioenergy will support the development at USDFRC of improved methods
for harvesting, handling, and storing herbaceous biomass and chemical
characterization of feedstock quality parameters affected by management
and storage.
The President's budget also proposes that the USDFRC investigate
the function of important genes in crops. Full funding for this
initiative will allow the application of the ARS system for regulating
gene expression to enhance the quality and value of cool season forage
and turf grasses.
AQUACULTURE RESEARCH FUNDING
Question. It was my understanding that there were discussions in
fiscal year 1999 to transfer $400,000 from the Kearneysville, WV ARS
facility to Leetown, WV for work at the NCCCWA. I further understand
that Senator Byrd was opposed to this transfer. I now learn that a
total of $1.3 million was transferred. Please explain the level of all
transfers (including specific project increases and decreases) from
Kearneysville to Leetown and also indicate whether Senator Byrd was
appraised in advance of these transfers.
Answer. Your understanding of the discussion in fiscal year 1999 on
the transfer of funds between the ARS Kearneysville, WV, facility and
the NCCCWA at Leetown, WV, is correct.
The aquaculture grant which provides funding in the amount of $1.3
million to the Fresh Water Institute at Shepardstown, WV was
transferred to the new Cold Water Aquaculture Center at Leetown, WV.
These funds were initially appropriated in fiscal year 1989 and managed
from headquarters from 1989 through 1995. These were eventually
transferred to the ARS facilities at Kearneysville, WV beginning in
1996 for closer program coordination. These are extramural funds and
are not implemented inhouse. Since these are aquaculture funds, they
are more appropriately managed at the new aquaculture facility at
Leetown. No inhouse funds were transferred from Kearneysville.
Question. If Senator Byrd was not so appraised, please explain.
Answer. Our failure to appraise Senator Byrd of this move was based
on our clear understanding from the conception of the National Center
for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture that there should be a close
working relationship between the NCCCWA and the Fresh Water Institute.
We believed that the transfer was consistent with Senator Byrd's
desires.
CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY
Question. The Budget includes funding for the Climate Change
Technology initiative of which $300,000 would be directed to the
Appalachian Farming Systems Center in Beaver, WV. Please explain how
the Climate Change Technology initiative fits in with the newly
recognized mission of the Beaver, WV center which is to assist small
farmers in Appalachia.
Answer. Successful and productive research through the Climate
Change Technology initiative conducted at the Appalachian Farming
Systems Research Center will provide expanded economic opportunity for
small farmers in Appalachia. Funding through the Climate Change
Technology initiative would be used to quantify the rates of soil
carbon sequestering of alternative farming systems. The funds will also
be used to identify and develop grasses and trees that have a high
value as energy biomass. Development of perennial legumes that are
suitable for the acid, low-fertility soils of the region is an
important part of the core program to improve pasture productivity for
cow-calf operations, and could also be used in a system to produce
biomass for energy or value-added products. Research results will be
used to develop farming systems that best meet small-farm economic and
environmental goals including greater diversification of farm products,
trading in carbon credits, and an improved ability to sustain
production during droughts. Additionally, carbon sequestration in soils
improves the soil's capacity to store nutrients and to hold water,
which is especially beneficial during droughts.
INVASIVE SPECIES
Question. Your fiscal year 2001 budget provides significant
increases to battle invasive species. Please identify the most
significant invasive species threats facing Wisconsin and what the
Department is doing to eradicate or manage these species.
Answer. The most significant invasive species threats facing
Wisconsin are gypsy moths. To combat this pest, we are cooperating with
the State of Wisconsin on survey and regulatory activities, as well as
on the eradication of isolated outbreaks. Bacterial spraying is planned
for 85,000 acres, including sites in Madison, Janesville, Beloit, and
Wausau. In fiscal year 1999, the bacteria that attack the pest were
sprayed last year on about 54,000 acres. With the funds requested in
our Invasive Species request, we would conduct pathways analyses to
develop target invasive species (such as gypsy moth) for national
survey through cooperative agreements and development of response
capabilities. These analyses will help us target invasive species for
national and State survey and activities. Another significant threat in
Wisconsin is the Eurasian Water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum L.).
This submerged aquatic weed originates from Europe, Asia, and North
Africa. It is rapidly spreading throughout the United States by
invading lakes, ponds, and reservoirs. It is especially troublesome in
nutrient rich waters with high motor boat use. Due to its unique growth
habits, Eurasian Water milfoil competes aggressively with native
plants. The plant's ability to grow in eutrophic conditions over a
broad temperature range also contributes to its competitive edge over
native plants.
Question. Please describe efforts taken by the Department in
working with foreign nations to help avoid the introduction of these
species?
Answer. We have over 80 foreign service officers assigned to over
30 countries around the world that are high risk for the entry of
invasive species. These officers work with foreign governments and
exporters to minimize the risk of entry of invasive species in
agricultural imports through activities such as preclearance programs,
the certification of export facilities, and the establishment of
inspection protocols. In addition, we have control programs in select
countries to reduce the threat of key invasive species, such as
Mediterranean fruit fly, foot-and-mouth disease, and screwworm.
Question. To what extent would the problem of invasive species be
controlled by an increase of border personnel?
Answer. An increase in border personnel could significantly enhance
our capability to exclude invasive species, as well as improve our
response to threats from various exotic pests, and provide us with
opportunities to examine emerging pathways, such as rail cars entering
the U.S. from Canada. This is why we are requesting additional
inspectors through our Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI)
program. Also, the revenue from our AQI user fees that took effect on
January 1, 2000, will help in our exclusion efforts by providing for
the hiring of additional inspectors, expanded canine teams, and state-
of-the-art high-definition x-ray machines.
Question. To what extent will the inspection levels included in the
fiscal year 2001 budget accomplish this objective?
Answer. While our AQI program of user fees will bolster our border
efforts with more staff years. Our fiscal year 2001 Invasive Species
request does not include positions at the borders or ports-of-entry.
The new positions we are proposing for this program are statisticians
and program analysts at the State, regional, operational methods, and
policy levels. These personnel would collect, validate, and use import
and pest data to diagnose and predict the pathways of various invasive
plant pests and animal diseases into the United States. They would also
evaluate the impact of new inspection strategies at ports of entry.
Question. To what extent is USDA working with other federal
agencies on border inspections to halt the introduction of invasive
species?
Answer. About half of our Invasive Species request is targeted to
help establish a new partnership with the U.S. Departments of Commerce,
Interior, EPA, while seeking greater collaboration with State agencies
and other stakeholders, through increased use of grants. For example,
we plan to incorporate existing educational grants to the States with
the goal of expanding public knowledge on the types of invasive species
under USDA regulation. To address the needs of the nation's plant
health industries and the State plant health agencies, we plan to
increase cooperative funding and grant opportunities that increase the
efficient use of Federal and State resources involved in the protection
of the environment, and plant and animal health.
ANIMAL WELFARE
Question. The fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill included an
increase of $1 million above the previous year level (nearly $500,000
above the budget request). How is the $1 million increase being
incorporated in the fiscal year 2000 plan of operations?
Answer. APHIS intends to use this increase to hire additional
inspectors; expand inspections of existing facilities; replace
vehicles; provide necessary training for our inspectors; and purchase
imaging and communications equipment to provide documentation and
evidence of violations.
Question. Please provide a summary of fiscal year 1999 Animal
Welfare activities including number of investigations, the nature of
violations, enforcement actions, and their outcomes.
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, APHIS investigated a total of 313
cases. Examples include a case where USDA and the U.S. Attorney's
office in Oregon successfully prosecuted 9 people for their roles in a
pet-theft ring. Charges included providing false information concerning
the suppliers of dogs sold into research. Two of the people received
sentences of 4 to 6 months of home detention and 1-year term of
probation, and they agreed to be permanently disqualified from being
licensed under the AWA. They were also prosecuted in the State Circuit
Courts for theft of companion animals.
Another example occurred in October 1998, when APHIS settled a case
with an airline which agreed to donate $25,000 to an APHIS-approved
organization to research methods to promote the safe and humane
handling of pet animals during transportation. The results of this
research will be disseminated to all carriers registered under the
Animal Welfare Act.
A particularly innovative enforcement case settled in August 1999,
involved a major primate reasearch laboratory. Terms of the settlement
included reducing the number of chimps at the facility by 300 over a 3-
year period; submitting to a review of their animal care program by an
external team of experts; establishing an independent compliance
official with access to all facilities, records, and animals; and a
$100,000 civil penalty, held in abeyance, assuming no new AWA
violations.
The budget proposes a $5 million increase in these activities for
the coming year. In addition, legislation relating to the Safe Air
Travel for Animals Act is in conference which might affect USDA program
activities.
Question. Would any of the request for the fiscal year 2001 be tied
to new regulatory activities not related to the Safe Air Travel for
Animals Act?
Answer. None of the request for fiscal year 2001 is specifically
related to the Safe Air Travel for Animal Act. APHIS intends to use
this increase to maintain current activities; expand inspections of
existing facilities; provide necessary training; and hire additional
inspectors. This would include an overall increase in oversight of
registered airline carriers.
Question. Has USDA reviewed the pending Safe Air Travel for Animals
Act to determine if it would have any affect of USDA operations or
budget?
Answer. APHIS has a copy of and has reviewed the proposed Act.
Question. If so, what were the findings?
Answer. One area of significant impact of the proposed Act arises
from the requirement for airlines to notify USDA 24 hours prior to any
live animal transport. If the intent is to have USDA inspect those
flights with live animal shipments, it would have a major impact since
there are approximately 500,000 animals shipped annually. Additionally,
if USDA is to be responsible to inspect cargo areas of aircraft to
assure compliance with the Act, this would require extensive training
for USDA inspectors.
AGRICULTURAL CONCENTRATION
Question. Concentration and the structure of agriculture. There is
an ongoing debate about the changing structure of the U.S. farm sector
and the extent to which the concentration of marketing power is harmful
to small independent family farmers. I hold the unique position of
serving as not only the ranking member of the Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee, but also as the ranking member on the
Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition.
Therefore, I have special interest in this debate. What are your
overall views of this debate and do you think moratoriums on mergers,
as was proposed last year, would be appropriate?
Answer. Moratoriums on mergers may not necessarily be appropriate.
However, USDA feels concentration and vertical coordination in
agriculture requires increased vigilance. USDA is applying scrutiny to
a number of proposed mergers and will take appropriate action to
mitigate any detrimental effects that might be caused by those mergers.
USDA's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
(GIPSA) has responsibility for enforcing the Packers and Stockyards
Act, including investigating competitive practices, trade practices,
and ensuring financial protection for producers in the livestock
industry. The Justice Department, along with the Federal Trade
Commission, has primary responsibility for enforcing the traditional
antitrust statutes, including the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.
Question. Do you think USDA should have authorities similar to
those at the Justice Department to examine and address problems related
to the structure of the U.S. farm sector?
Answer. It may not be necessary to pursue additional authority at
this time. On August 31, 1999, the USDA signed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the DOJ and FTC. The MOU calls for the three
agencies to cooperate on issues related to monitoring competitive
conditions in the agricultural marketplace. The agencies will confer
regularly to discuss and review law enforcement and regulatory matters
to increase each agency's understanding and to improve each agency's
effectiveness in carrying out its respective legal responsibilities, so
there is no need for separate authority at this time.
RAPID RESPONSE TEAMS
Question. The fiscal year 2001 budget request includes an increase
of $1.3 million for Rapid Response Teams at GIPSA. What have the Rapid
Response Teams, alone or in conjunction with other USDA activities,
done to address small producer concerns regarding their perceived
disadvantages in the market place?
Answer. To date, small producer concerns and problems have been
addressed in the following ways. First, the Rapid Response Teams have
met with producers in Missouri and South Dakota provide local, on-site
counsel and assistance to producers in order to enhance communication
and respond to specific producer complaints and concerns to proactively
respond to potential violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act as
well as consider new legislation passed by these states. Second, the
Rapid Response Teams have responded to small-producer complaints and
concerns regarding two poultry integrators and one livestock auction
market. Swift, decisive action by the rapid response teams protected
the producers' interests and prevented or minimized financial harm.
These actions were most beneficial to small producers, who may not have
the resources to properly protect their interests.
Question. Provide a listing of locations and reasons for deployment
of Rapid Response Teams in fiscal year 1999 or, to the extent
information is available, in fiscal year 2000. Describe specific
incidents or corrective actions that were taken in fiscal year 1999 or
in fiscal year 2000 resulting from the deployment of these teams.
Answer. In July 1999--Sioux Falls, Brookings and Mitchell, South
Dakota--the Rapid Response Teams addressed concerns of cattle and hog
producers that packers allegedly violated the Packers and Stockyards
Act since enactment of South Dakota's mandatory livestock price
reporting law on July 1, 1999. The portion of the law prohibiting
packers from discriminating in prices paid for livestock was declared
unconstitutional by a U.S. District Court on July 26, 1999. An
investigation was completed by GIPSA's Denver regional office, and is
under review at GIPSA headquarters.
[The information follows:]
September 1999--Kirksville, Marshall, Maryville and Mexico,
Missouri--The Rapid Response Team responds to livestock producers'
concerns that packers may have violated the Packers and Stockyards Act
when Missouri's new mandatory livestock price reporting law was enacted
on August 28, 1999. Enforcement of the Missouri law is presently held
in abeyance pending a Federal court decision on its constitutionality,
but the law initially generated a considerable amount of controversy
and misunderstanding among producers and the packing industry. Swift
action by the Rapid Response Team enhanced communication between GIPSA,
the state of Missouri, producers, and the packing industry. Possibly as
a result of the pro-active actions of the Rapid Response Team, no
violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act and regulations were
found.
November 1999--Excel, Wichita, Kansas--The Rapid Response Team
responds to an issue concerning two Excel plants that were harvesting
kidneys before carcasses were weighed on the hot weight scale,
resulting in carcass weight being short about 2 pounds per carcass.
Excel made $710,791 in restitution to its feedlot suppliers, who were
expected to reimburse their customers.
January 2000--Tecumseh, Nebraska--The Rapid Response Team responds
to complaints concerning a broiler processor that ceased operations on
January 14, 2000, owing 29 poultry growers $461,619 for unpaid poultry
obtained under a poultry growout contract. A team of Packers and
Stockyards investigators was immediately dispatched to the plant to
marshal trust assets, determine who was unpaid, and assist them in
filing trust claims under the Packers and Stockyards Act. Emergency
funding of operations under a bankruptcy court order was agreed to,
allowing for the purchase of feed and for processing of chicks on hand
to continue until all birds have been processed. All valid trust
claims, calculated to total $250,820 will be fully funded.
February 2000--Jackson, Mississippi--The Rapid Response Team
responds to poultry growers' concerns of unfair treatment under the
Packers and Stockyards Act as a result of complaints made by poultry
growers about changes to their growout contracts. The poultry firm's
management and grower representatives negotiated amendments to the
original contract offer that improved grower pay and addressed other
grower concerns. Most growers have signed the negotiated contract.
February 2000--Paxinos, Pennsylvania--A packer ceased operations in
February 2000, owing approximately $175,000 for livestock. An immediate
investigation resulted in sellers receiving payment in full without
further delay and/or litigation expense to collect the amounts owed
February 2000--Williston, North Dakota--The investigation concerns
the proper payment for leased livestock sold at auction. The
investigation is pending.
February 2000--Blackfoot, Idaho--An auction market operated without
the required surety bond. The Rapid Response Team worked with the
auction market and its surety company to immediately reinstate the bond
before further sales were held. The investigation is continuing.
CRANBERRIES
Question. In the fiscal year 2000 Consolidated Appropriations Bill,
Congress directed USDA to evaluate the current supply/demand situation
in cranberries to make purchases to relieve the downward pressure on
cranberry prices. Several Senators from the nation's top cranberry
producing states also wrote you last winter urging you to take action
to purchase surplus cranberry supplies.
Please update this Committee on the status of your efforts to
address the oversupply situation in the cranberry industry.
Answer. USDA has made efforts to assist the industry through
several purchases of cranberry products for distribution through
domestic food feeding programs. In 1999, USDA purchased 1.0 million
pounds of cranberry/apple juice. In 2000, USDA has purchased an
additional 5.0 million pounds of cranberry/apple juice and for the
first time, purchased 3.7 million pounds of trail mix, of which one-
fifth or approximately 750,000 pounds consisted of dried cranberries.
USDA is aware of the situation that the cranberry industry still finds
itself in and is presently considering the feasibility of an additional
purchase of cranberries.
ORGANIC RULES
Question. The budget request of fiscal year 2001 includes an
increase of $614,000 for reporting of organically grown fruits and
vegetables and a net increase of $703,000 for organic market protection
and promotion. When do you expect to publish a final rule on National
Organic Standards?
Answer. USDA will release its revised organic standards proposed
rule in early March. We expect to have a final rule in place by the end
of 2000.
Question. Please provide information regarding steps taken by the
Department to offset the initial costs of accreditation services from
within available funds.
Answer. The proposed rule will provide for a waiver in the
accreditation fees during the first 18 months of the program. This will
provide an incentive for certifying agents to become accredited under
the new national program as soon as possible.
GIPSA AND BIOTECH GRAINS
Question. There is growing debate over the use of biotechnology as
related to agricultural production, such as the discussion about
segregation of grain that may or may not have been genetically altered.
Please describe the activities of GIPSA regarding this issue.
Answer. USDA, through the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration (GIPSA) establishes standardized quality grades and
testing methodologies. These standards are used every day by sellers
and buyers to communicate the type and quality of cereals, pulses, and
legumes bought and sold. Biotechnology is affecting this program in two
fundamental ways: (1) increased consumer demand for conventional crops
has created a need for reliable testing methodologies to distinguish
bio-engineered from conventional crops; and (2) an anticipated increase
of new value-enhanced traits will create an expanded need for
standardized testing methodologies to measure the enhanced quality
attributes.
To meet the market's need for impartial, professional verification
of biotechnology testing technologies, GIPSA announced on November 12,
1999, that it would establish a biotech reference laboratory. The
laboratory will evaluate and verify the validity of analytical
procedures used to detect and quantify biotechnology traits in grains
and oilseeds and establish sampling procedures for use in testing
genetically enhanced grains and oilseeds. However, questions remain as
to the capability of the U.S. marketing system to segregate
conventional and biotech crops. Accurate and consistent testing
technology is essential as the market struggles to segregate crops in
an efficient and effective manner.
Question. If this debate becomes more heated in the coming months,
especially if it becomes more complicated by trade considerations, do
you think the levels currently requested for fiscal year 2001 will be
adequate?
Answer. It appears that GIPSA's request for an additional $1.98
million and 10 staff years is adequate. This projected need is based on
GIPSA validating the performance of methodologies and accrediting
commercial laboratories to provide testing services. If market
conditions create a need for direct Federal testing, additional funding
will be necessary to develop expanded methodS for the testing
capabilities of GIPSA's technical center in Kansas City, Missouri. Once
methods are developed, these tests will be funded by user fees.
MILK FORWARD PRICE CONTRACTS
Question. Please outline the steps you are taking to ensure that
the Department meets its statutory obligation to establish a pilot
program for forward price contracts between milk producers and milk
handlers by the beginning of March.
Answer. USDA has developed a proposed rule to implement the
program, a Program Announcement, a set of Questions and Answers about
the program, and a Forward Pricing Pilot Program Fact Sheet and
Disclosure Statement. The proposed rule will be published at the
beginning of March with a 15-day comment period. A final rule
implementing the pilot program will be published as soon as possible
after comments received on the proposed rule are addressed.
HACCP
Question. I am aware of a recent court challenge rising out of
Texas related to your authorities under HACCP. Can you provide an
update to this action?
Answer. Supreme Beef's legal action contesting USDA's authority to
promulgate the Salmonella performance standard regulations and to
suspend inspection for failure to meet that standard continues. Both
USDA and Supreme Beef have filed cross motions for summary judgment. On
February 14, 2000, USDA held the suspension of inspection for Supreme
Beef in abeyance after the company committed to take action to meet
USDA regulatory standards. The suspension will remain in abeyance
pending verification by USDA that Supreme Beef's corrective and
preventive measures are effectively implemented.
Question. In the event USDA does not prevail in the particular
action, what would be the effect on the HACCP program overall to USDA
food safety operations?
Answer. USDA is not able to predict either the basis or the scope
on which the judge might rule in the Supreme Beef litigation. However,
in a worst case scenario under which the judge overturned the USDA's
authority to require that establishments meet microbiological
performance standards, the current approach to food safety might be
disrupted. The use of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point
(HACCP) systems itself is a process requirement, not a substantive
performance standard. The current Salmonella performance standards for
carcasses and ground products serve as direct, pathogen-based measures
of the accomplishments of establishment HACCP systems.
Question. What have been the reactions to this action form within
the meat and poultry industry and from consumer advocates?
Answer. Industry and consumer advocates share our concern for
establishing the most effective food safety system possible. Several,
but not all, industry organizations have joined in filing amicus curiae
briefs in support of Supreme Beef. Conversely, consumer groups are
expected to file an amicus curiae brief in support of USDA.
EGG SAFETY ACTION PLAN
Question. I have heard some concern from egg producers about the
Egg Safety Action Plan released by the President's Council on Food
Safety on December 10, 1999. There is concern that the extensive
environmental testing requirements might be particularly costly for egg
producers. What is the Administration's estimates of the total cost for
testing? Of egg diversion?
Answer. Total cost estimates for environmental testing will be
developed as USDA and HHS progresses through the rulemaking necessary
to implement the Egg Safety Action Plan.
Question. What are the relative differences in effectiveness and
cost of testing eggs rather than production environment?
Answer. The Salmonella Enteritidis (SE) Pilot Project, conducted by
FSIS prior to the development of the President's Shell Egg Action Plan,
showed that testing manure in the layer houses was effective in
identifying flocks with SE infected eggs. Based on the cost of
analysis, the number of samples required, and the degree of correlation
associated with the analytical results, it is more cost effective and
practical to conduct environmental testing rather than testing eggs to
determine SE infection in a layer flock.
Question. Since public funds pay meat, poultry and egg product
inspection cost, including costs for Salmonella testing in meat and
poultry, would the use of taxpayer funds be appropriate in this case as
well?
Answer. The meat and poultry industry currently pay for the costs
of E. coli testing. E. coli testing under the Pathogen Reduction/HACCP
rule serves the same purpose that microbiological testing under the
Shell Egg Action Plan would serve, which is to ensure that their food
production processes are under control. Accordingly, the cost of
environmental testing requirements is a cost that should be borne by
the egg production industry.
Question. Egg producers have expressed concern about the
possibility of inconsistent enforcement of regulations if the
Administration relies heavily on state agency personnel to implement
the Plan. Please list steps that the Department of Agriculture will
take in order to ensure consistent enforcement of any eventual federal
egg regulations by state agencies.
Answer. The 2000 budget for the Food Safety and Inspection Service
requests an additional $2.0 million to begin implementation of the
Shell Egg Action Plan. Under the plan the agency plans to provide State
agencies the training and information necessary to ensure consistent
enforcement of egg regulations by State and Federal agencies.
Question. The Food and Drug Administration has proposed a warning
label on egg, which differs from the food safety and handling label
required on meat and poultry products required by the Food Safety and
Inspection Service. In your view, should safe handling labels on meat,
poultry and eggs be consistent?
Answer. Safe handling labels on meat, poultry, shell eggs and
processed egg products should be consistent in providing appropriate
information to consumers to ensure safe handling.
Question. CDC first identified internally contaminated eggs as a
source of Salmonella enteritidis infection in the late 1980's. Many
consumer groups are concerned about the length of time it took for USDA
and FDA to develop an action plan to address this public health
problem. What steps could be taken to reduce the government's reaction
time to food safety problems in the future?
Answer. The establishment of the President's Council on Food Safety
has helped ensure that food safety problems in the future will be
quickly identified and responded too. The Council provides the
necessary forum for ensuring increased agency cooperation and
coordination for addressing complex food safety issues. In addition,
the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to
facilitate the exchange of information about establishments under dual
jurisdiction of FSIS and FDA and emerging food safety issues.
FSIS INSPECTOR SHORTAGES
Question. To what extent have inspector shortages caused
disruptions in the meat and poultry industries over the past year as
reported on a month to month basis?
Answer. The additional funding included in the fiscal year 2000
budget for inspection staffing has permitted FSIS to hire additional
inspectors to staff meat, poultry and egg products plants and will help
to minimize inspector shortages. Inspector shortages have occasionally
caused plants in certain locations to alter production practices to
accommodate inspector staffing problems. Since the beginning of
December, 1999, the agency estimates that there has been a minimal
disruption to the industry due its inability to have an inspector
available at all times an establishment wants to operate.
Question. What assurances can you provide that projected staff year
reductions for fiscal year 2001 will not continue or exacerbate
problems of inspector shortages?
Answer. The projected staff year reductions are based on two
separate and distinct initiatives. In both cases, USDA is committed to
a full and complete public dialogue and will not move forward unless
the changes are demonstrated to be effective. If the data and analysis
support the change, USDA anticipates being able to implement staff year
reductions without exacerbating inspector shortages.
Question. What is USDA doing to improve inspector recruitment
activities?
Answer. USDA has taken a number of actions to improve inspector
recruitment activities. Those actions are outlined in the paper
developed by the agency, which I will provide for the record.
[The information follows:]
FSIS' FOOD INSPECTOR RECRUITMENT EFFORTS
Background
A number of factors have made it difficult to successfully recruit
individuals to fill vacant positions in Field Operations. In the case
of Veterinary Medical Officers, positions are not competitive in
today's job market. Top quality candidates for Food Inspector positions
are also in short supply in many locations, due to many factors. The
work is typically very demanding, with strict physical requirements.
Remote locations often have a limited applicant pool, and many who do
apply have conflicts of interest that do not allow them to serve in a
regulatory capacity. In the case of Intermittent Inspector positions,
the requirement to be on-call with no guarantee of hours, and the
limited benefits, make that position less attractive to most applicants
than other options in the current job market. The Food Safety and
Inspection Service, however, is confident it will recruit a well-
qualified and diverse workforce.
FSIS efforts to increase the number of inspectors include:
--Refocusing efforts within Human Resources to increase the number of
applicants on standards registers for field occupations.
Applicants to these registers are solicited through a variety
of recruitment initiatives such as on-campus visits,
conventions, advertisements, direct mailings, and posted
announcements on the Internet and at all Office of Personnel
Management Service Centers. FSIS also publishes job
opportunities in agricultural publications, such as the
Cattlemen's Journal and Farm Bureau. FSIS recruits from
veterinary schools, Hispanic-serving institutions, and
historically black colleges and universities, as well as at
veterinary conventions and agricultural career days at
universities where candidates are identified. In addition,
public notices about FSIS jobs are available at all State
employment agencies.
--Recruiting and hiring 80 more inspectors by the end of the fiscal
year to achieve a target employment level of 7530.
--Broadening the emphasis of FSIS' recruitment program to include
other scientific backgrounds to meet current and future hiring
needs and conducting recruitment training in September to train
new recruiters in this area.
--Asking current agency personnel to assist in publicizing
recruitment needs.
--Asking candidates who applied for inspector positions in areas
surrounding locations with shortages if they would be
interested in a position in locations that are experiencing
shortages.
--Providing Veterinary Medical Officers with a recruitment bonus up
to 25 percent of their salary, particularly in areas where
there are fewer candidates. This has been approved in eastern
Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Nebraska. FSIS is also exploring
additional options, such as relocation and retention bonuses
for inspectors.
--Scheduling inspector entrance tests in locations where there is a
need for inspectors. FSIS conducts tests in 10-12 locations
around the nation each month. These tests are spread out
geographically.
--Exploring alternative ways to fill other than permanent (OTP) full-
time positions, such as permanent part-time tours of duty, and
term and temporary appointments. We will be working with the
inspectors union to explore the feasibility of options
identified.
--Collecting and analyzing exit interview data to identify possible
retention issues.
--For an application, contact Keith McFarlin at 1-800-370-3747, ext.
2580, or visit the U.S. Government official site for jobs and
employment information at www.usajobs.opm.gov.
Question. In the event that inspector shortages remain a problem,
what steps can the Department take in the management of food safety
operations to reduce the harmful effect of these shortages to industry
and the ultimate consumer?
Answer. The 2001 budget requests the funding necessary for a
sufficient number of inspectors to meet industry demand. Our
intensified recruitment program is showing results that should prevent
future shortages.
HACCP INSPECTION MODELS
Question. Please provide an update on the HACCP Inspection Model in
place, including a description of any problems that might delay full
implementation of the HACCP Inspection plan by the fourth quarter of
fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The HACCP-based Inspection Model Project is progressing as
planned. I have asked the Food Safety and Inspection Service to provide
an update on the project for the record.
[The information follows:]
At present, 24 plants slaughtering young chickens, swine, and
turkeys are listed as volunteers in the HACCP-based Inspection Models
Project (HIMP). Baseline data collection, which measures current
inspection program performance, has been completed in sixteen young
chicken plants, four swine plants, and two turkey plants. Baseline data
collection will be completed in a fifth swine plant in March and will
begin in the third young turkey plant the first week of April.
Seven young chicken and two swine plants have entered the models
phase, in which the plant assumes post-mortem responsibilities while
FSIS conducts oversight and verification inspection. Of these, six
young chicken plants and one of the swine plants are in a models
transition phase that precedes the collection of data for measuring
plant performance under new models phase procedures. One young chicken
plant and one swine plant are now in the actual models data collection
phase.
A public meeting on HACCP-based Inspection Models Project is
scheduled in March. Input from this meeting should help us identify any
problems that may delay the implementation schedule as planned.
FOOD RECALLS
Question. Consumer groups have criticized USDA recently in the
Washington Post Magazine for taking too long to issue a recall notice
in the Sara Lee outbreak, an outbreak where 100 people became ill and
21 died from hazardous bacteria, Listeria, in ready-to-eat meat
products. What was the reason for the delay in issuing a recall in this
case?
Answer. Sara Lee initiated a voluntary recall. USDA did not have
any positive laboratory results that would have mandated requesting the
announcement of a recall any earlier. Sara Lee took action before there
was a USDA laboratory result from intact Sara Lee product that was
positive for Listeria monocytogenes, or a legally sufficient,
epidemiological association between the product and the illnesses could
be established On the same day Sara Lee announced the recall, USDA
posted a recall Notification Report on its website, and faxed and e-
mailed the same report to over 300 public health and food safety
officials throughout the country.
LISTERIA TESTING
Question. Consumer groups have criticized USDA for failing to
require testing of ready-to-eat meat products and plants for Listeria.
While USDA recommended such testing, it has not issued regulations to
mandate testing for all processors. Does USDA have any concerns that
this voluntary policy will result in uneven adherence with the testing
recommendation?
Answer. We are concerned about the voluntary policy and we are
currently evaluating the need to require testing for Listeria.
Question. Would mandatory testing provide public health protections
and a level-playing field for the industry?
Answer. Mandatory testing for Listeria could further enhance the
safety of meat and poultry products by reducing the risk of Listeria
entering the food supply.
Question. Has USDA considered this?
Answer. USDA is considering the need for mandatory testing for
Listeria monocytogenes and is gathering additional information to
determine the need for rulemaking.
DAIRY MARKET LOSS PROGRAM
Question. As you know, last year the Agriculture Appropriations
bill provided $125 million in emergency relief payments for dairy
farmers. While I appreciate the Secretary's decision to target the
funding to small operations, I am concerned that the payments may not
get into farmers' hands until this spring. Please tell this Committee
what caused the delay in the announcement of the sign up period,
particularly given that USDA is using the same process to distribute
payments used in fiscal year 1999.
Answer. The Dairy Market Loss Assistance Program was implemented in
February, 2000. Payments will be issued in March. Though the process
remained relatively unchanged, an amendment to the regulations was
necessary to implement the program. The amendment to the regulations is
anticipated to be published in the Federal Register on or about
February 16.
Question. You've called for an end to ad hoc emergency payments for
agriculture and proposed instead the two-year stop-gap safety-net plan.
That proposal provides only for an extension of the dairy price support
program, which is viewed inadequate by most farmers. I know that dairy
farmers would prefer a more meaningful solution to price volatility
than emergency payments, but given the regionalism I have encountered,
emergency payments have been the only way I have been able to get
assistance into the hands of dairy farmers.
Since you have excluded dairy and livestock from your safety net
proposal when prices are so low, will you support emergency assistance
for milk and livestock producers this year?
Answer. The Administration's safety net proposal includes the
proposal to extend the milk price support program which was estimated
to cost $300 million and $200 million for a pilot livestock insurance
program. However, the dairy situation has worsened since the proposals
were developed which makes the dairy price support extension even more
critical and could increase the cost of the program. It is not clear
yet if other livestock producers will need emergency aid in 2000.
Question. And if so, how much funding do you think will provide
adequate income in light of our low milk prices?
Answer. It is too premature to determine funding levels for 2000.
It is clear that milk producers will be stressed as dairy prices are
expected to average about 40 percent less in fiscal year 2000 than
fiscal year 1999. Poultry prices are down but red meat prices are up.
If the current dry conditions in most parts of the country continue,
there may be great need for emergency assistance for milk and other
livestock producers. We are willing to work with Congress to determine
adequate funding levels as the condition of milk and livestock
producers becomes clearer in 2000.
NAD DECISIONS
Question. I am concerned about recent reports that 86 percent of
the decisions of regional hearing officers that are favorable to
farmers were overturned by the Director of the National Appeals
Division, but that only 5 percent of adverse decisions were overturned
at the national level. Is the Department's analysis consistent with
these figures?
Answer. The Department has taken a close look at this issue and is
concerned with the misconceptions that have been raised. While it is
unclear what specific figures were used by the Farm Journal, the
Department's analysis shows similar trends. However, it is important to
consider the fuller context of the roles of the parties in the
adjudicative process in order to understand why these numbers are not
indicative of bias. Provided for the record is the most recent
Departmental analysis of this matter.
[The information follows:]
Each NAD appeal is adjudicated on its own merits. The basis for NAD
determinations and its procedures are specified in Title 7 Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 11. The NAD Director has no control over the
numbers or merits of any case for which a review of a hearing officer's
determination is timely requested by a party. By law, Title II,
Subtitle H, of the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of
Agriculture Act of 1994, the Director upholds, reverses, modifies or
remands hearing officer determinations on review.
If a hearing officer determines error in an agency's administrative
decision, only the head of an agency may seek a review. In most cases,
however, no error is found by hearing officers. In fiscal year 1999,
for example, no agency error was determined by hearing officers in 75
percent of the cases appealed to NAD. If error is determined by a
hearing officer, the head of the agency must state specific reasons why
the hearing officer's decision is wrong, including violations of
statutes and regulations. Under USDA regulations, the Director must
base his decision on the laws and regulations of the agency and their
generally applicable interpretations. Moreover, an appellant cannot
challenge the validity of agency regulations because only the federal
courts can determine that an agency regulation is invalid.
NAD has no jurisdiction over the appropriateness of agency
regulations. Agencies promulgate their own regulations. Given agency
expertise with respect to its own regulations, the head of an agency
will select for review only those cases in which the hearing officer's
determination is not consistent with the agency's laws and regulations.
This results in a higher percentage of reversals of hearing officers'
determinations in cases taken on review by the head of an agency. On
the other hand, there is a far greater number of cases in which the
hearing officer determines no agency error. In these cases, the hearing
officer found that the Agency correctly applied its own regulations,
and it is highly unlikely that the Director would determine on review
that both the hearing officer and the agency misconstrued the latter's
own requirements. Thus, there is a very low percentage of reversals of
hearing officer's determinations in cases taken on review by
appellants.
In 1997, the USDA Inspector General issued a comprehensive report
on NAD covering part of the period in which reversal rates were
reported as such by the Farm Journal. The report found that NAD
hearings were not appropriately focused on whether adverse decisions
were consistent with laws, regulations, and agency policies and
procedures, . . . NAD hearing officers exceeded their authority and
substituted their judgment for that of the agency. The report
recommended that NAD update its written guidelines, improve its
management information system, and provide employee training on the
proper exercising of authorities and responsibilities. In response, NAD
has published its latest rules of procedure in the Code of Federal
Regulations (Title 7, Part 11, Subpart A), is continuing improvements
to its management information system, and has conducted employee
training on topics surrounding the adjudicative process and exercising
of authorities. Included in NAD's 2001 budget request is a funding
increase that would allow the Division to set in motion a comprehensive
and continuous employee training program. A copy of the report is
provided for the record. (Evaluation report No. 50801-2-AT, March 1997)
[The information follows:]
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose
This report presents our evaluation of decisions rendered by the
National Appeals Division (NAD) to individuals and others who were
originally denied U.S. Department of Agriculture program benefits and
who appealed those denials. Our evaluation was performed as part of the
Office of Inspector General's farm program strategy designed to ensure
overall program integrity and assist program managers to find solutions
for known or potential program weaknesses. Our review concentrated on
administrative appeals related to Commodity Credit Corporation programs
administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA). The review included an
(1) examination of the agencies' documentation used to support their
adverse decisions and present their cases to NAD hearing officers and
(2) evaluation of the hearing officers' decisions and of NAD director
reviews.
Those who appeal to NAD need to demonstrate that when the agency
made its adverse decision, either it (1) did not base the decision on
proper criteria (i.e., laws, regulations, or procedures), (2) did not
consider all relevant evidence, (3) relied on evidence that was
inaccurate, or (4) relied on evidence that did not prove a violation of
the stated criteria. NAD must confine its rulings to the criteria upon
which the adverse decision was based and not substitute its judgment
for that of the agency.
Results in brief
NAD hearings were not appropriately focused on whether adverse
decisions were consistent with laws, regulations, and agency policies
and procedures. In some cases, this occurred because FSA did not
clearly show the criteria used and the evidence it considered in making
its adverse decision. In other cases, NAD hearing officers exceeded
their authority and substituted their judgment for that of the agency.
We concluded that significant resources were expended by NAD, FSA, and
the appellants to arrive at decisions that misconstrued agency program
requirements. Improper decisions like these could either deny an
appellant benefits to which he/she is entitled or hinder FSA's efforts
to pursue program abuses. We also found that FSA personnel did not
always adhere to decisions made by the State and/or county committees
when presenting the agency's cases at NAD hearings.
Management controls over NAD hearings need to be strengthened. We
concluded that NAD needs to:
--update its written guidelines clarifying policies and procedures
for evidentiary hearings and director's reviews,
--improve its management information systems to help ensure that the
division adheres to timeframes established by legislation and
that resources are used efficiently and effectively, and
--provide training which better explains the differences between the
authority and responsibilities of NAD and those of the
agencies.
We also concluded that FSA needs to improve training for State and
county office personnel to ensure the quality of adverse decisions and
to ensure that adverse decision letters provide sufficient information
to explain the basis for the adverse decisions.
Key recommendations
We recommended that FSA clearly show the criteria and evidence used
in making its decisions by providing sufficient information in adverse
decision letters to explain the authority and basis for the decisions,
and that any modifications to the initial adverse decision are
adequately explained and related to any new evidence or criteria.
In order to ensure that NAD hearing officers do not substitute
their judgment for that of the agency, we recommended that the NAD
director require hearing officers to limit the scope of NAD hearings by
identifying the laws, etc., that the appellant claims the agency did
not adhere to, and the evidence that the appellant contends was
erroneous or omitted. Hearing officers should also state whether the
appellant contends there is no reasonable basis for the agency's
determination. In addition, we recommended that hearing officers limit
their determinations to whether an agency complied with applicable
laws, regulations, and generally applicable interpretations.
To strengthen management controls over NAD hearings, we recommended
that NAD formalize and update its policies and procedures, improve its
management information system, and provide training for hearing
officers and reviewing officials which ensures they understand the
difference between NAD's authorities and those granted to the agencies.
Agency position
In their written responses to the report, both NAD and FSA agreed
with the findings and recommendations. Based on their responses, we
agreed with their management decisions for 6 of the 11 recommendations.
INTRODUCTION
Background
The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994, Public Law 103-354, required the Secretary
of Agriculture to establish and maintain an independent National'
Appeals Division (NAD) within the Department to handle administrative
appeals. On December 27, 1994, a notice was published in the Federal
Register (59 F.R. 66,517) establishing NAD. NAD was assigned
responsibility for all administrative appeals formerly handled by NAD
of the former Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service and
by the National Appeals Staffs of the former Farmers Home
Administration (FmHA), the former Soil Conservation Service (SCS), the
Commodity Credit Corporation, and the Federal Crop Insurance
Corporation.
Current agencies whose appeals are assigned to NAD include (1) the
Farm Service Agency (FSA), (2) the Rural Development Service (RD),\1\
and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ RD includes the Rural Housing Service, the Rural Utilities
Service, and the Rural Business-Cooperative Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAD is headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia, and has 3 regional
offices and 65 field locations in 37 States. As of September 30, 1995,
NAD had 131 fulltime employees-including 80 hearing officers and 12
reviewing officials.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Reviewing officials perform Director reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Public Law 103-354, a participant has the right to appeal an
agency's adverse decision to NAD if the request is made no later than
30 days after the date on which the participant first received notice
of the decision. The appellant (participant) has the right to have a
hearing by NAD within 45 days after NAD receives the request for the
hearing.
The act requires the appellant to bear the burden of proving that
the agency's adverse decision was erroneous. The hearing officer must
consider any information presented regardless of whether the evidence
was known to the agency official, employee, or committee making the
adverse decision at the time the decision was made. The hearing officer
must also leave the record open for a reasonable period after the
hearing to allow the appellant or agency to submit information
necessary to respond to new facts, information, arguments, or evidence.
If a NAD hearing officer upholds an adverse decision by the agency,
the appellant may submit a written request to the NAD director for
review of the hearing officer's determination. The written request must
be filed no later than 30 days after the date on which the appellant
receives the hearing officer's determination. If a NAD hearing officer
reverses the agency's adverse decision, the head of the agency may make
a written request to the NAD director for a review of the
determination. The notice must be filed no later than 15 business days
after the date of the hearing officer's determination. When requested
by the appellant or the agency, the director, or designated NAD
official, will review the hearing officer's determination to determine
whether it is supported by substantial evidence. Exhibit A presents a
flowchart of the NAD administrative appeals process for FSA adverse
decisions.
From October 1, 1995, through September 30, 1996, NAD hearing
officers reversed FSA's adverse decisions 35.8 percent of the time
compared to 24.7 percent for RD cases and 21.7 percent for NRCS cases.
Table 1 shows a comparison of hearing officers' determinations on FSA,
RD, and NRCS cases. A comparison of hearing officers' determinations in
the three NAD regions is provided in exhibit B.
TABLE 1.--HEARING OFFICER DETERMINATIONS
(October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1996)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Reserved Agency Upheld Modified
------------------------------------------------------ Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSA.............................................. 666 35.8 1,073 57.6 123 6.6 1,862
RD............................................... 368 24.7 1,090 73.1 33 2.2 1,491
NRCS............................................. 18 21.7 63 75.9 2 2.4 83
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................... 1,052 30.6 2,226 64.8 158 4.6 3,436
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, during fiscal year 1996, NAD hearing officers were overturned
on 114 of 772 FSA cases (see table 2). Exhibit B provides information
concerning director review requests made by appellants and by agencies.
TABLE 2.--DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATIONS
(October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1996)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing
Officer Hearing Modified Total
Reversed Officer Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSA............................................. 114 636 22 772
RD.............................................. 14 323 20 357
NRCS............................................ .............. 49 .............. 49
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 128 1,008 42 1,178
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objectives
Our evaluation was performed as part of the Office of Inspector
General's (OIG) farm program strategy designed to ensure overall
program integrity and assist program managers to find solutions for
known or potential program weaknesses. Our review concentrated on
administrative appeals related to Commodity Credit Corporation programs
administered by the FSA. The review included an (1) examination of the
agencies' documentation used to support their adverse decisions and
present their cases to NAD hearing officers and (2) evaluation of the
hearing officers' decisions and of NAD director reviews.
Scope
The evaluation was conducted in accordance with ``Quality Standards
for Inspections'' issued in March 1993 by the President's Council on
Integrity and Efficiency. We conducted work at the NAD Headquarters in
Alexandria, Virginia, and at FSA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Fieldwork was performed during the period October 23, 1995, through
October 4, 1996. We used judgmental sampling to select cases for review
in order to focus our resources on problem areas identified during our
discussions with personnel from NAD and FSA.
Methodology
To accomplish the evaluation objectives, we conducted interviews at
both NAD and FSA Headquarters. We also telephonically interviewed NAD
personnel from the three regional offices located in Golden, Colorado;
Indianapolis, Indiana; and Memphis, Tennessee.
We reviewed NAD's authorizing legislation and regulations to
provide background and criteria for evaluating the quality of NAD
determinations and for evaluating NAD's overall operations.
We judgmentally selected and reviewed hearing records from 35 NAD
cases based on problem areas identified by various sources such as
congressional inquiries, discussions with personnel from NAD and FSA,
input from various OIG regional offices, and whistleblower requests
received by OIG.
--Three cases were reviewed because of a congressional inquiry.
--Ten cases were recommended for review by NAD.
--Ten cases were selected from a list of cases which FSA had planned
to submit to the Secretary's office for review.
--Two cases were recommended for review by FSA National and State
office personnel.
--Eight cases were identified by various OIG regional offices as
problem cases.
--Two cases were from whistleblower complaints received by OIG.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ We reviewed two whistleblower complaints (Nos. PS-4601-0001 and
PS-4601-0002) as part of our evaluation of NAD appeals. However,
administratively final NAD determinations can only be reviewed by a
U.S. district court. Therefore, we were unable to make specific audit
recommendations to address individual cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In selecting our sample, we picked cases which related to specific
problem areas identified by the various sources including
--the preponderance of evidence standard for review,
--granting of equitable relief,
--remands,
--acceptance and use of oral testimony,
--acceptance and use of Office of the General Counsel (OGC) legal
opinions, and
--use of NAD subpoena powers.
We reviewed NAD procedures related to these areas, reviewed the NAD
hearing records as they pertained to the problems, and determined
whether procedures provided sufficient guidelines to ensure that NAD's
policies and procedures were clear.
For each of the 35 sample cases, we reviewed NAD determinations and
evidence included in the hearing record and listened to tapes of the
hearing. We reviewed the findings of facts and conclusions in the
hearing officers' and review officials' determinations to evaluate
whether they were consistent with the evidence presented at the
hearing. We also evaluated the agencies' preparation and presentation
of the adverse decisions for each case.
In addition, we (1) evaluated NAD's management information systems
(2) attended training with NAD personnel and evaluated the training,
and (3) followed up on a prior audit report and management alert.
OIG Audit Report No. 46001-1-At, issued September 29, 1995,
presented the results of an audit performed at the request of the
former FmHA administrator to evaluate hearing officer decisions and
FmHA program staff decisions related to FmHA loans. In contrast, our
current evaluation focused on the Commodity Credit Corporation programs
administered by FSA. Therefore, recommendations in the prior report
were not applicable to FSA programs on which the current report
focused.
During the course of fieldwork on Audit No. 46001-1-At, NAD was
established as an independent agency responsible for various other
programs. Although NAD was established as a new and independent agency,
the initial organization of NAD was centered around the old FmHA's
internal appeals organization. The prior audit report, as well as a
management alert, dated February 8, 1995, included issues regarding the
establishment of NAD. Management decisions were completed for all of
the recommendations contained both in the management alert and the
prior report.
Even though corrective action was taken on our prior audit
recommendation to issue procedures for the issuance and enforcement of
subpoenas, our current evaluation disclosed additional improvements
needed in procedures related to subpoena power. (See Finding No. 3.)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
I. NAD hearings were not appropriately focused on whether adverse
decisions were consistent with laws, regulations, and agency
policies and procedures
NAD hearings did not appropriately focus on whether adverse
decisions were consistent with laws, regulations, and agency program
policies and procedures. This occurred because (a) FSA did not always
clearly show the criteria used (i.e., laws, regulations, etc.) and
evidence considered in making its adverse decisions and (b) NAD hearing
officers sometimes substituted their judgment for that of the agency.
As a result, significant resources were expended by NAD, FSA, and the
appellants in debating matters which were not within NAD's authority to
determine. Additionally, resulting improper NAD determinations could
either deny an appellant benefits to which he/she is entitled, or
hinder FSA's efforts to pursue program abuses.
FSA DID NOT ALWAYS CLEARLY SHOW THE CRITERIA USED AND THE EVIDENCE
CONSIDERED IN MAKING ADVERSE DECISIONS
Finding No. 1
FSA did not always adequately cite laws, regulations, and handbook
instructions, nor relate the applicable criteria to the evidence
considered when making adverse decisions. This often resulted in
unclear and confusing issues during NAD hearings. Although FSA had
implemented procedures to provide the required notification of
decision,\4\ we concluded that the notification did not always give
sufficient information to the participant. Also, FSA personnel did not
always adhere to their agency's determinations while presenting the
agency's case to NAD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Public Law 103-354, section 274, requires: ``Not later than 10
working days after an adverse decision is made that affects the
participant, the Secretary shall provide the participant with written
notice of such adverse decision and the rights available to the
participant * * * for review of such adverse decision.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When making adverse decisions, State committees (STC) and county
committees (COC) should ensure the following.
--Relevant laws, regulations, and procedures are followed.
--All relevant evidence is considered and evidence used in making the
decision is accurate and reliable.
--Judgment decisions are based on accurate, reliable, and convincing
evidence and the decisions are reasonably related to the
appropriate laws, regulations, and procedures.
FSA should provide sufficient information to the participants so
they understand the basis for the decision, know what options are
available if they dispute the adverse decision (i.e., appeal to the
county or State level, mediation, NAD, etc.), and clearly understand
the scope of NAD hearings. To explain the adverse decision, the
agency's letter to the participant should address each of the three
areas cited in the previous paragraph.
Our review of 35 NAD hearing records disclosed that the criteria,
evidence considered, and basis for the agency's decision were clearly
presented in the adverse decision letter for only 10 of the cases. For
the remaining 25 cases we found the following. (See exhibit C.)
--Neither the criteria nor the evidence was cited in seven cases.
--Criteria was cited but the evidence was not in seven cases.
--Evidence was cited but the criteria was not in nine cases.
--There was no adverse decision letter in the hearing record for two
cases.
Even though OGC recognizes that appellants cannot challenge
agencies' generally applicable interpretations,\5\ it is important that
both the appellant and the hearing officer understand the basis for the
procedure. In many instances, handbook procedures are not provided as
part of routine communication between FSA and participants because they
are often tools or tests used to determine whether the participants
have complied with laws, regulations, and contract requirements. In
such situations, it is important for FSA to adequately relate the
procedures to the laws and/or regulations so that the hearing officer
can determine whether the procedures were correctly applied. An example
follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ OGC comments included in NAD's Interim Final Rule, dated
December 29, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAD LOG NUMBER--95001121W
The appellant was denied program benefits because FSA determined
that he did not provide the required active personal labor or
management, and therefore was not actively engaged in farming. As
criteria, FSA cited Handbook 1-PL, paragraph 154, which states that:
``If a member of a joint operation receives a guaranteed payment for
any part of a contribution of labor or management, exclude all of the
specific type of contribution for which payment is received.'' However,
FSA did not explain how the criteria related to the agency's
determination that the appellant was not actively engaged in farming.
The hearing officer determined that ``Nowhere in the regulation
cited * * * is there any reference to withdrawing of funds being a
constraint on eligibility,'' and concluded:
The appellant was unaware of the ramifications of these actions
until notified by the CFSA [Consolidated Farm Service Agency] that he
had been denied eligibility for program benefits because he was
determined not to be actively engaged in farming * * *. Therefore,
because the Appellant was not notified of the policy of the Agency
prior to being determined ineligible for program benefits, the
determination is unfair.
The hearing officer also concluded:
The Appellant denies he is receiving a ``guaranteed payment'' from
the partnership and contends it is, in fact a draw.
It was clearly the intent of the Appellant for these funds to be
considered a draw from his one-half of the partnership. The only
documentation considered by the CFSA was in the form of the tax return.
The tax return was prepared incorrectly for the intent of the
Appellant.
The hearing officer did not conclude that the agency's procedure
was wrong but that it was misapplied (e.g., definition of guaranteed
payment). We concluded that the agency should have explained how the
handbook procedure related to regulations which address contributions
to farming operations, and why the appellant was not provided prior
notification of the handbook procedure.
We also found that FSA personnel did not always adhere to COC, STC,
or FSA National Office determinations and subsequent modifications
while presenting the agency's cases to NAD hearing officers. In two of
the sample cases, the FSA representative attending the hearings
improperly determined that the finality rule (90-day rule) applied in
those cases. In another case, the FSA representative improperly used
the COC's initial determination of scheme or device, even though the
adverse decision had been modified to a ``failure to fully comply''
determination which is based on different criteria. Details of the
latter case follow.
NAD LOG NUMBER--95001142W
The COC determined that the appellant participated in a scheme to
circumvent the provisions of the malting barley program. In an FSA
State office appeal review, the STC determined that the ``failure to
fully comply'' provision of the regulations better fit the
circumstances of the case. A letter from the acting deputy
administrator for farm programs approved the STC's request to handle
the matter by stating: ``Based on the determination of the State
committee and the informal advice from your Regional Attorney's office
this is your authority to handle the cases referred to in your
memorandum under the ``failure to fully comply' provision of the
regulation.''
The STC notified the appellant that ``[T]he State Committee
normally would have determined a scheme was used to obtain additional
benefits and denied barley program benefits. However, after
communication with your county committee, the state committee sought a
more moderate solution.''
However, the FSA representative at the hearing improperly contended
that the appellant participated in a scheme or device to circumvent
spot checking procedures.
In summary, we concluded that FSA needs to improve its adverse
decision letters by ensuring they provide sufficient information to
explain the authority and basis for the decision. Additionally, any
modifications to the initial decision should adequately explain and
relate to new evidence, criteria, or other reason for the modification.
The initial adverse decision letter along with modifications should
serve as FSA's primary evidence in presenting cases to NAD. This would
reduce the time and resources needed by FSA in preparing and presenting
cases to NAD. FSA representatives should adhere to the agency's
determination when presenting cases to NAD. We also concluded that
information provided to the appellant should relate handbook procedures
to the appropriate law or regulation whenever necessary to clarify how
the procedures apply to the applicable criteria and evidence.
Recommendation No. 1a (to the FSA Administrator)
Provide sufficient information in adverse decision letters to
explain the authority and basis for the decision. At a minimum, the
letters should provide a (1) brief summary of the applicable law or
regulation and handbook procedure, (2) summary of the evidence used in
making the determination, and (3) description of the adverse decision
relating the evidence to the applicable criteria in order to show a
reasonable basis for the determination.
Recommendation No. 1b (to the FSA Administrator)
Ensure that any modifications to the initial adverse decision are
adequately explained and related to any new evidence or criteria, and
that the modifications are sufficiently communicated to the appellant
and to NAD. Also, ensure that FSA personnel attending NAD hearings
adhere to determinations and any subsequent modifications made by the
COC, STC, or FSA National Office when presenting the agency's case in
NAD hearings.
FSA Response
In its March 21, 1997, response, FSA replied that it ``accepts and
agrees with the findings and recommendations of the audit.''
OIG Position
FSA's response did not specify the actions it plans to take for
these two recommendations. To reach management decisions, we need to be
informed of the action to be taken and the timeframe for carrying them
out.
NAD Hearing Officers sometimes substituted their judgment for that of
the Agency
Finding No. 2
NAD hearing officers sometimes substituted their judgment for that
of the agency. We concluded this occurred because hearing officers did
not limit issues to whether the agency's adverse decisions were
consistent with the laws, regulations, and generally applicable
interpretations.\6\ Instead of determining whether agencies complied
with applicable criteria and considered accurate and relevant evidence
in making their adverse decisions, hearing officers allowed discussion
of broad issues for which they determined the merits of each party's
position. As a result, the hearing officers' determinations often
failed to identify where agencies had erred in their adverse decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Generally applicable interpretations refer to the administering
agency's interpretations of laws and regulations which are applicable
to all program participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 25 of the 35 NAD cases reviewed, we concluded that the hearing
officers had not related their determination to relevant criteria. In
24 of the 25 cases, we also concluded that the determination was not
related to relevant evidence. (See exhibit C.)
Legislation which authorizes U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
programs gives the Secretary authority to carry out the programs. This
authority is delegated by the Secretary to the appropriate agency such
as FSA, RD, NRCS, and other USDA agencies. In order to carry out these
programs, certain steps are taken by the administering agency. Rules
and regulations governing the programs are published in the Federal
Register, and the administering agency establishes policies and
procedures which are generally applicable interpretations of laws and
regulations used in program administration. Agencies' adverse decisions
must be made in accordance with the applicable laws, regulations, and
the generally applicable interpretations made by the agencies to carry
out programs.
NAD determinations, on the other hand, are based on information
from the case record and whether the agency's adverse, decision is
consistent with the laws and regulations of the agency, and with the
generally applicable interpretations of such laws and regulations. In
order for the hearing officer to overturn the agency's adverse
decision, the appellant must show that the adverse decision was
erroneous.
As presented in NAD's Interim Final Rule, OGC had determined: ``NAD
Hearing Officers are not administrative law judges. NAD has no
jurisdiction over questions of law or the appropriateness of agency
regulations. It simply decides the factual matter of whether an agency
complied with such laws and regulations in rendering an adverse
decision.''
OGC further determined that ``NAD is not a forum for appellants to
challenge agency statutes, regulations, or the generally applicable
interpretations of those statutes and regulations.''
Based on our review of the applicable legislation and regulations,
we concluded that issues appealable to NAD would include the following.
--The agency did not follow laws, regulations, and procedures.
--All relevant evidence was not considered.
--Evidence considered was not accurate.
--The agency had no reasonable basis for its judgment (i.e., the
evidence had no relationship to the criteria used in making the
adverse decision).
The NAD Hearing Officer Manual states that ``[O]nly evidence that
is relevant to the underlying issues should be considered.'' However,
issues discussed at hearings were often broad and not related to
whether the agency made an error in making its adverse determination.
Therefore, considerable time was used to debate matters which were not
within hearing officers' authority to determine.
The following is an example where excessive time (approximately 18
hours) was used because the hearing officer did not determine the
appropriate scope of the hearing. More specifically, the hearing
officer did not relate his determination to the relevant criteria,
utilized unsubstantiated evidence in drawing conclusions, did not
consider all relevant evidence, and did not apply the appropriate
burden of proof standard.
NAD LOG NUMBER--9500104OW
The producers applied for benefits under the Disaster Assistance
Program, claiming their crop was damaged by flooding. FSA denied the
benefits, stating that the producers did not operate their farm in a
workmanlike manner--they did not till the soil before planting their
crops (a practice referred to as ``no-till''), and they did not
properly maintain a culvert that was necessary to drain the affected
acreage. The producers appealed, and NAD reversed FSA's decision. NAD
based its reversal on an SCS handbook published for another area of the
State, and on the producers' unsubstantiated claim that their crop
failed because of a natural disaster, not because they used improper
farming methods.
FSA based its argument on the requirements stated in FSA Handbook
5-PA, paragraph 149. This paragraph provides that certain practices
such as ``cultural practices normal to the area or introduced by ES
[Extension Service] or SCS to improve conservation'' and minimum till
and no-till practices customary to the area should not be considered
unworkmanlike. FSA had determined that the producers' soil was not
conducive to the ``no-till'' method and that the method was not normal
and customary to the area.
Although the hearing officer focused on the tillage method used by
the producers, he failed to appropriately address FSA's generally
applicable procedures found in paragraph 149 of the handbook. Instead,
he relied on the evidence supplied by the producers, an SCS pamphlet
promoting ``no-till'' practices. We concluded that this pamphlet was
irrelevant as evidence because it applied to a different area of the
State, and to a soil type different from the type on the producers'
farm.
Even though the producers' evidence did not apply to their farm,
the hearing officer's finding of facts stated ``Appellants' exhibits *
* * demonstrate and promote conservation tillage (notill, minimum till,
etc). Such practices are not uncommon in the area of Appellants'
farm.'' From this assumption, the hearing officer concluded that ``the
practice of minimum or no tillage is an acceptable practice (more than
acceptable by some) notwithstanding what some farmers in (the county]
may practice.'' The producers did not contend that ES or SCS
recommended the ``notill'' practice for their farm, and they did not
provide any evidence of such a recommendation.
For the cause of the crop loss, the hearing officer used
unsubstantiated evidence and concluded that ``it is obvious that the
development (of the crop] was retarded by lack of sunlight.'' The
hearing officer inappropriately introduced this unsubstantiated
evidence into the hearing record by asking the producer whether the
crop could have been stunted by a ``lack of sunlight.'' However, no
evidence was introduced to show that there was a lack of sunlight or
that the crop was affected by this condition.
In calculating the producers' crop yields, FSA determined that a
contributing factor to the producers' crop loss from flooding was their
failure to properly maintain a drainage culvert located on their farm.
However, the hearing officer gave no consideration to this
determination when making his decision.
The hearing officer utilized broad criteria defining overall
eligibility for the Disaster Assistance Program payments to conclude
that ``the Appellants met their burden of showing that their crops
failed due to flooding and subsequent drought conditions.'' However, we
concluded that the hearing officer should have focused on more specific
criteria in FSA Handbook 5-PA, paragraph 149, and should have
specifically identified whether FSA's decision was erroneous, as it
relates to the applicable criteria.
We concluded that by relying on broad criteria and failing to
utilize relevant criteria and evidence, hearing officers used the
``preponderance of evidence'' standard (see Finding No. 3) to make
determinations which they were not authorized to make, and failed to
determine whether the producer met the burden of proving that the
agency's adverse decision either contained an error or was based on
one.
Recommendation No. 2a (to the NAD Director)
Require hearing officers to limit the scope of NAD hearings to
matters relevant to the agency's alleged errors. In order to provide
this assurance, the ISSUE section of the hearing officers'
determination should
--identify the law, regulation, and/or procedure to which the
appellant claims the agency did not adhere (ensuring that the
criteria is not broad and vague),
--identify the evidence that the appellant contends was not
considered by the agency or the evidence which was supposedly
erroneous, and
--state whether the appellant contends there is no reasonable basis
for the agency's determination.
NAD Response
In its March 21, 1997, response, NAD stated that ``The format for a
Hearing Officer determination was revised to include citations to
relevant laws and regulations, specific exhibits entered into the
record, and to address the burden of proof.''
OIG Position
We concur with NAD's management decision for this recommendation.
Recommendation No. 2b (to the NAD Director)
Require hearing officers to limit their determinations to the
factual matter of whether an agency complied with applicable laws,
regulations, and generally applicable interpretations. In order to
provide this assurance, the conclusion section of the hearing officers'
determination should include the following.
--Cite the specific laws, regulations, and/or procedures which are
relevant to determining whether the agency's adverse decision
was in error, and avoid referring to broad criteria not
specifically related to the alleged error. When determining
that the agency failed to follow appropriate criteria, state
how the agency erred.
--Cite the specific evidence used in drawing the conclusions, whether
the agency had considered all relevant evidence, and identify
what evidence was in error.
--Contain a description of how the relevant evidence did or did not
logically relate to the relevant laws, regulations, and/or
procedures. The description should also include a conclusion as
to whether the appellant met the preponderance of evidence
standard by showing that there was no logical relationship
between the two, when applicable.
NAD Response
In its March 21, 1997, response, NAD stated:
As stated in response to recommendation 2a, the Hearing Officer
determination format has been revised since the issuance of the 1995
determinations reviewed for the audit. There has also been specific
training on writing of determinations and all Hearing Officers will
have had substantial training and discussion on writing determinations
by the end of this fiscal year.
The ``Conclusions'' section now cites specific laws and regulations
which are relevant to determining whether the agency's adverse decision
was erroneous or not. Specific statements are used to analyze evidence
that was considered relevant and credible as well as setting forth the
applicable regulations used in determining whether the agency's adverse
decision was erroneous. Further, a specific conclusion is dedicated to
determine whether the burden of proof has been met through a
preponderance of the evidence.
OIG Position
We concur with NAD's management decision for this recommendation.
II. Management controls over NAD hearings need to be strengthened
Management controls over NAD hearings need to be strengthened. We
concluded that NAD needs to (a) update its written guidelines and
clarify its policies and procedures for evidentiary hearings and
director's reviews, (b) improve its management information system (MIS)
to provide performance measures at various NAD levels, and (c) provide
training which better explains the differences between the authority
and responsibilities of NAD and those of the agencies.
NAD needs to update its policies and procedures
Finding No. 3
NAD's policies and procedures did not always provide sufficient
guidance to address issues arising during NAD hearings. As reported in
NAD hearing officers sometimes substituted their judgment for that of
the agency. We also noted that NAD did not have a formal system for
maintaining current NAD policies and procedures, and that FSA
instructions regarding appeals to NAD were not consistent with NAD
regulations.
In selecting our sample of 35 cases, we picked cases which related
to problem areas identified through discussions with NAD and FSA
personnel and through inquiries made to various OIG regions. Some of
the material issues which were causing difficulties at NAD hearings
included
--the preponderance of evidence standard for review,
--granting of equitable relief,
--remands,
--acceptance and use of oral testimony,
--acceptance and use of OGC legal opinions, and
--use of NAD subpoena powers.
We reviewed NAD's regulations, policies, and procedures related to
these areas, and NAD's hearing records as they pertained to the
problems. The following discussion details areas where we concluded
that NAD's policies and procedures need to be updated.
Preponderance of Evidence Standard
NAD legislation requires that the appellant bear the burden of
proving that an agency's adverse decision is erroneous. However, NAD's
Interim Final Rule, dated December 29, 1995, added that the appellant
must prove that the decision is erroneous ``by a preponderance of the
evidence.'' In its comments to NAD's Interim Final Rule, FSA expressed
concern that the inclusion of the ``preponderance of evidence''
standard shifted the burden of proof from the appellant to the agency
by diluting the statutory requirement that the appellant must prove
that the agency's decision was erroneous. FSA also commented that the
``preponderance of evidence'' standard conflicted with the law, and
should be removed from the regulations.
We did not attempt to determine whether the ``preponderance of
evidence'' standard was consistent with NAD legislation. However, we
did find that neither NAD's regulations nor procedures explained how
the ``preponderance of evidence'' standard was to be applied in NAD
hearings.
As discussed in Finding No. 2, hearing officers sometimes used the
``preponderance of evidence'' standard to make determinations which
they were not authorized to make, and, in doing so, failed to determine
whether the appellant met the burden of proving that the agency's
adverse decision either contained or was based on an error. NAD should
provide written guidelines defining ``preponderance of evidence'' and
explaining how this standard applies to evidence presented at NAD
hearings.
Equitable Relief
Public Law 103-354 states that the NAD director shall have the
authority to grant equitable relief in the same manner and to the same
extent as the authority given to the Secretary. Although NAD has
established procedures relating to equitable relief cases, we
questioned whether such cases should be subject to review by hearing
officers.
Equitable relief involves instances in which participants who have
taken actions which could affect their eligibility, acted in good faith
by relying on the actions or advice of an authorized representative of
the Secretary. In these instances, the NAD director is authorized to
grant relief to the participants by providing program benefits to the
extent determined appropriate for fair and equitable relief.
Even though hearing officers do not have the authority to grant
equitable relief, Public Law 103-354 includes the denial of equitable
relief in the definition of an adverse decision. In cases where the
appellant challenges the agency's denial of equitable relief, NAD's
Hearing Officer Manual instructs the hearing officers as follows:
[Y]ou should make findings and conclusions concerning the
appropriateness of granting or denying such relief. If you determine
that the agency erred in denying equitable relief, you may so hold and
return the case to the agency for further action consistent with your
determination. You do not have the authority to affirmatively grant
equitable relief yourself, although the Director may do so if the case
comes to him for review.
We concluded that such cases should not be subject to review by
hearing officers since they have no authority to make a determination
on the appeal. If hearing officers overturned agencies' denials of
equitable relief, they would in effect be granting equitable relief. We
concluded that cases involving denial of equitable relief should be
reviewed only by the NAD director.
Remands
NAD's policies and procedures did not adequately address remands.
There were no policies or procedures for establishing timeframes to
complete remand cases. Also, there were no guidelines to explain what
types of situations warrant a remand.
Public Law 103-354, section 278(b), requires the NAD director to
issue a final determination or remand a case back to the hearing
officer within 10 business days if a review is requested by the agency
or 30 business days if requested by an appellant. NAD's Interim Final
Rule, section 11.9(d)(1), states:
If the Director determines that the hearing record is inadequate or
that new evidence has been submitted, the Director may remand all or a
portion of the determination to the Hearing Officer for further
proceedings to complete the hearing record or, at the option of the
Director, to hold a new hearing.
Neither the legislation, NAD's Interim Final Rule, nor NAD's
procedures establish timeframes for completing remand cases. We
contacted the NAD regions and found that each region assigned new case
numbers for remands. Regional office personnel told us that remands
were handled as though they were new hearings for tracking purposes,
and that hearing officers had 45 days to hold another hearing (if
necessary) and another 30 days to make their determinations.
Notifications of remands are sent to the regional offices. However,
regional office personnel said that there is a time lag of 1 or 2 weeks
before the notice is received and the hearing officer receives the
case.
In one of our sample cases, the NAD appeal was concluded
approximately 7 months after the request for appeal was filed. The
hearing officer used 74 days to make his determination for the remand.
The delay in processing the participant's appeal resulted in a
congressional inquiry into the timeliness of the NAD process. The
following is a summary of that case.
NAD LOG NUMBER 95000494E
RD disapproved the appellant's request to obtain funding for a
waste water treatment plant. The agency determined that proposed basic
engineering services (BES) fees were excessive as compared to fees
charged for similar projects when agency funding was not involved. The
appellant contended that the BES expenses were appropriate for the
complexity of the proposed project and that a fee curve should not be
used to establish BES expense limits.
The hearing officer reversed the agency's determination based on
his determination that regulations did not authorize the agency to
establish a fee curve maximum to evaluate proposed BES expenses.
However, the hearing officer neither had the authority nor the
expertise to determine whether the fees were reasonable. Further, from
our review of the hearing record, and based on the reviewing official's
conclusion which follows, we concluded that the appellant did not show
that the agency's decision was adverse to the appellant (as opposed to
a matter of general applicability) and did not meet the burden of
proving that the agency's determination was erroneous.
During the director's review, the reviewing official concluded:
The data which the appellant submitted to show engineering fees on
other projects is conflicting and does not readily identify the fees
charged for projects not involved in Agency funding. We find no
substantive evidence to support the HO's (hearing officer] finding that
the proposed BES is not in excess of those ordinarily charged by the
profession for similar work when Agency financing is not involved.
Further, we find no substantive evidence to support the Hearing
Officer's determination that RD has approved other projects in which
the BES exceeded the maximum allowable.
Even though the reviewing official's conclusion indicated that the
appellant did not meet the burden of proof, the case was remanded to
the hearing officer to ``determine if the fees are reasonable.''
However, since the agency's decision was a matter of general
applicability and the reviewing official determined that there was no
substantive evidence to show that the agency's decision was erroneous,
we concluded that the hearing officer's initial determination should
have been overturned instead of remanded back to the hearing officer.
Acceptance and Use of Oral Testimony
NAD's policies and procedures do not provide guidelines to assist
hearing officers in weighing oral testimony. FSA officials told us that
one of their major concerns was that hearing officers were accepting
unsubstantiated oral testimony as persuasive evidence.
NAD's Interim Final Rule, part 11.8(5)(ii), states:
Any party shall have the opportunity to present oral and
documentary evidence, oral testimony of witnesses, and arguments in the
support of the party's position * * *. Any evidence may be received by
the Hearing Officer without regard to whether that evidence could be
admitted in judicial proceedings.
NAD's Hearing Officer Manual instructs hearing officers to keep in
mind that not everything that a witness says is factual evidence.
However, NAD's policies and procedures do not provide general
guidelines on how to weigh oral testimony. We found that hearing
officers sometimes accepted and inappropriately relied on
unsubstantiated oral testimony. The following is an example.
NAD LOG NUMBER--95001719E
FSA determined that the appellants participated in a scheme or
device to evade payment limitations by misrepresenting their interest
in the farming operation. The agency's evidence showed that the
producers did not maintain separate bank accounts for their interest.
The agency also noted that the producers had no evidence to show that
cash rent was paid for the land, that they owned or leased the land, or
that they supplied capital for the farming operation.
The hearing officer subsequently overturned FSA's determination
largely on unsubstantiated oral testimony of the appellants. Little to
no physical documentation was offered by the appellants to support the
oral testimony. The reviewing official who conducted the director's
review wrote: ``Although the record contained little documentation of
[the appellants'] 1993 farming activities, the Hearing Officer
determined that the appellants' testimony sustained the burden of proof
required to reverse CFSA's decision.'' [Underlines added.]
The reviewing official also concluded: ``In the absence of
testimony by CFSA personnel involved in accepting the appellants'
applications for disaster and associated documents, the Hearing Officer
accepted the appellants' testimony as persuasive.''
We concluded that the hearing officer's reliance on unsubstantiated
oral testimony, given the seriousness of an adverse decision concerning
a scheme or device, was improper. As a result of NAD's decision, an
assistant U.S. attorney declined prosecution of the case, and stated:
``We are declining prosecution in this matter. While it appears that
the (appellants] engaged in a scheme to defraud the Department of
Agriculture * * * by accepting the [appellants] uncorroborated, and
false statements, the NAD has undercut our ability to prove any
criminal violations.''
In many instances, especially where matters such as schemes and
devices or bad faith determinations are made by FSA, hearing officers
should ensure that oral testimony, other than expert witnesses
providing an opinion, is substantiated by the appellant.
Acceptance and Use of OGC Legal Opinions
Even though NAD is in the process of establishing procedures to
obtain independent legal opinions when needed, there are no procedures
addressing situations in which a hearing officer should utilize OGC
legal opinions obtained by the agency.
In the ``NAD Notes'' for February through March 1996, the director
wrote: ``OGC is developing a system to provide us independent legal
opinions related to program issues. We will work with * * * OGC to
effect an appropriate means of securing definitive legal opinions on
the laws applicable to matters at issue * * *.''
The hearing officers are further instructed to refer requests for
legal opinions to NAD regional directors. However, situations arise
where hearing officers must determine the relevance of OGC opinions
obtained by the agency to their determinations, or where the agency's
opinions from OGC should be included as criteria or evidence relevant
to the NAD determination. In these situations, NAD procedures should
instruct hearing officers to determine the relevance of OGC opinions to
the administrative hearing and, when appropriate, include the opinions
in making their determinations. Independent legal opinions should be
obtained when necessary to ensure that ``definitive'' opinions clarify
any ambiguous ones.
The following is an example where the hearing officer improperly
made a legal determination which was contrary to an OGC opinion
obtained by the agency.
NAD LOG NUMBER--95000487W
In this case, the agency determined that the appellant acted in
``Bad Faith'' by illegally converting chattel property which was part
of a farm operating loan. The agency based its adverse decision, in
part, on an OGC opinion that the appellant's sale of chattel
constituted conversion as defined by the appropriate State's statutes.
Although the agency had approved the sale through public auction of
certain equipment owned by the appellant, the appellant sold the
equipment prior to the public offering for less than the amount the
agency determined the equipment was worth. The appellant received a
check from the buyer which was made payable to both the appellant and
the agency. Although, the check was neither deposited nor cashed, the
purchaser refused to return the equipment.
The hearing officer incorrectly concluded that ``since there is no
acceptance of the offer by all parties (Appellant and Agency), the sale
had not been executed, thus, no valid sale has occurred.'' From this
conclusion, the hearing officer determined that the appellant had not
illegally converted chattel property. Therefore, the hearing officer
not only exceeded his authority by making a legal determination, but
also erred in his determination (acceptance occurred when the purchaser
agreed to the price and tendered the check to the producer).
For this appeal case, we concluded that the hearing officer should
have considered the OGC determination when making his determination. If
the hearing officer questioned the accuracy of OGC's decision, he
should have requested assistance from the NAD regional director.
Subpoenas
Public Law 103-354 gives the NAD director and hearing officers the
authority to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of witnesses and
the production of evidence. In response to OIG Audit Report No. 46001-
1-At, dated September 29, 1995, NAD issued procedures for the issuance
and enforcement of subpoenas. However, NAD procedures do not address
instances where hearing officers may determine that the attendance of a
witness is necessary even though no request is made by the appellant or
the agency. An example follows.
NAD LOG NUMBER--95001333S
FSA determined that the appellant participated in a scheme or
device designed to evade payment limitations. The appellant alleged
that he acted only as a custodian of farm records, financing, and bills
for another individual's farming operation. FSA concluded that the
appellant was, in fact, the producer in that farming operation.
Important evidence presented by FSA included a signed statement from
the other individual stating that he had no interest in the farming
operation other than as a hired hand.
As part of an appeal to the STC, the other individual had provided
a signed statement in September 1989, showing that he was a separate
person for payment limitation purposes. Subsequently, in April 1990,
the other individual provided a statement to the county executive
director recanting the September 1989 statement and showing that he was
only a hired hand on the farm. Even though the agency had a signed
statement from the other individual stating that he was not truly a
producer in the farming operation for which the adverse decision was
made, the hearing officer gave the statement little consideration by
stating:
We find it significant to note that neither statement was prepared
by [the other individual] and as addressed by Appellants the second
statement was obtained by the county executive director and contained
vague and ambiguous references to Appellants. Therefore, while this
information was reviewed in making our decision, we did not consider
the information to be compelling evidence.
The fact that the statement was prepared by someone other than the
person who signed it was of little significance compared to the
statement itself and the signature of the producer. The appellant
claimed that the statement was coerced and false. However, he did not
provide any evidence to support his claim. If the hearing officer
believed that the statement may have been coerced or false, he had the
authority to subpoena the other individual as a witness.
NAD needs to update its written guidelines to clarify its policies
and procedures regarding when witnesses may be subpoenaed and establish
a formal system to assist the NAD director in ensuring that the
division's policies and procedures are consistently applied throughout
the agency.
FSA Instructions Need Clarifying
We also noted a need for FSA to improve its instructions. FSA
instructions regarding appeals to NAD were inconsistent with NAD
regulations. FSA Notice APP-11 presented suggested notification
language for initial COC decisions. The suggested language, in part,
stated:
If you believe the decision by the County Committee is in error,
you may elect any of the options in the following sequence:
--Reconsideration by the County Committee.
--Request mediation.
--Appeal to the State Committee.
--Appeal to the National Appeals Division.
You may elect these options in the indicated sequence. You may
select any of the first three options, or you may skip any of the first
three options and select a later choice, or skip all three and appeal
to NAD.
We found that the suggested language was not consistent with NAD
regulations which state:
A participant must seek an informal review of an adverse decision
issued at the field service office level by an officer or employee of
FSA * * * before NAD will accept an appeal of an FSA adverse decision.
Such informal review shall be done by the county or area committee with
responsibility for the adverse decision at issue. * * * After receiving
a decision upon review by a county or area committee, a participant may
seek further informal review by the State FSA committee or may appeal
directly to NAD.
NAD regulations also allow an optional informal review for adverse
decisions issued at the FSA State office level. The participant is not
required to seek the informal review before appealing to NAD in these
situations.
Recommendation No. 3a (To the NAD Director)
Implement a formal policies and procedures system by combining the
current Hearing Officer Manual and various ``NAD Notes'' into a
numbered and dated manual.
NAD Response
In its March 21, 1997, response, NAD stated that it had ``created a
directive system to disseminate NAD policies and procedures. The
directives are to be numbered and incorporate expiration dates.''
OIG Position
We concur with NAD's management decision for this recommendation.
Recommendation No. 3b (To the NAD Director)
Update NAD guidelines to clarify policies and procedures related to
the following areas.
--Preponderance of evidence standard for review
--Granting of equitable relief
--Remands
--Acceptance and use of oral testimony
--Acceptance and use of OGC legal opinions
--Use of NAD subpoena powers
NAD Response
In its March 21, 1997, response, NAD replied:
The NAD Interim Final Rule and comments published in the Federal
Register cover the areas addressed. Further, the issues of
Preponderance of Evidence, Equitable Relief, OGC Opinions and Subpoenas
are covered in the NAD Hearing Officer Manual. Subpoenas and Equitable
Relief have also been addressed in NAD Notes.
OIG Position
We disagree with NAD's management decision for this recommendation.
Based on our review of 35 cases, we continue to conclude that needs to
provide additional guidance on the 6 areas enumerated in the
recommendation.
Recommendation No. 3c (To the FSA Administrator)
Ensure that guidance given to State and county offices concerning
NAD appeals is consistent with NAD regulations by updating Notice APP-
11 to notify appellants that they must first seek an informal review of
COC determinations before appealing to NAD.
FSA Response
In its March 21, 1997, response, FSA replied that it ``accepts and
agrees with the findings and recommendations of the audit.''
OIG Position
FSA's response did not specify the actions it plans to take for
this recommendation. To reach a management decision, we need to be
informed of the actions to be taken and the timeframe for carrying them
out.
NAD's Management Information System Needs Improvement
Finding No. 4
NAD's MIS does not provide information necessary to make key
decisions for evaluating the division's performance. This occurred
because NAD's data base was unreliable and current management reports
were ineffective. As a result, NAD's management does not have
sufficient means to ensure that the division adheres to timeframes
established by legislation (i.e., hearing must be held within 45
calendar days of request) or ensure that resources are used efficiently
and effectively.
In testimony before Congress addressing the 1997 appropriation, the
NAD director stated:
The current tracking system was initially designed to handle only
former FmHA type appeal cases and provide canned reports. The current
tracking system does not meet NAD's monitoring and reporting needs and
limits our ability to provide Congress and USDA critical data regarding
the appeals handled by NAD.
An MIS should provide decision-makers with the necessary data to
guide operations towards fulfilling the division's mission. The system
must be effective and efficient so that reliable and timely information
can be generated. A well designed system that incorporates these
elements provides management with the necessary information to evaluate
appeal case progress and employee performance.
A critical function of NAD's MIS is to track appeals to NAD in
order to ensure that appellants are given a timely hearing and
determination as prescribed by the timeframes required by law. In
addition to tracking timeframes, the MIS is an important tool for
measuring the performance of the division at all levels, and
determining where resources are needed within the division to ensure
efficient and effective operations. Management reports can be designed
to identify problem areas in the performance of hearing officers,
regional personnel, and national reviewing officers. Once problem areas
are identified through these reports, the director can take appropriate
action such as focusing quality assessment reviews in order to better
identify the cause of problems, update policies and procedures based on
problems identified, and determine training needs for both individuals
and the organization.
Based on our review and our discussions with NAD personnel, we
concluded that NAD's current MIS was inefficient and ineffective
because of an unreliable data base and ineffective management reports.
Unreliable Data Base
We found that NAD's data base is unreliable because it does not
include sufficient dates and status codes needed to ensure compliance
with legislated timeframes and the proper allocation of resources. The
MIS does not track NAD hearings to determine whether hearings took
place within 45 days from the date the request was received and if
hearing officers' determinations were made within 30 days from the date
of the hearing. We also found that remand cases were not tracked to
ensure timely resolution.
NAD's current MIS consists of a data base called ``NASTRACK'' for
data entry. ``NASTRACK'' is a combination of two subsystems. One
subsystem is the system used by the former FmHA's internal
administrative appeals unit. It contains all information related to
appeals filed through FSA. The second subsystem was created by NAD and
contains all information related to appeals filed by all other agencies
for which NAD has responsibility. Information is retrieved by NAD using
the Statistical Analyses System (SAS).
The data base provides for three entries relating to the dates in
which a hearing officer must hold a hearing and make a determination.
These entries include the date the request was received, the date of
the hearing, and the hearing decision date. However, information
concerning the date of the hearing was unreliable. In instances where
hearings are held open,\7\ the date the hearing was closed is entered
as the hearing date. Also, even though a hearing may take more than I
day, the last day of the hearing is normally entered as the date of the
hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Public Law 103-354 requires that the hearing officer shall
leave the hearing record open for a reasonable time to allow for the
submission of information by the appellant or the agency to respond to
new facts, information, arguments, or evidence presented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to determine if hearings are held within 45 days of the
request, the MIS should include data to reflect the first day of the
hearing. This would provide reliable data for determining whether the
hearing was held within 45 days of the date of request. Since hearings
are not always concluded in 1 day, the MIS should also include data to
reflect the date that the hearing was closed. By comparing the closed
date with the date of the hearing officer's determination, NAD will
have reliable data to determine whether determinations are being made
within 30 days of the hearing.
The MIS does not include status codes needed to determine why
timeframes were not met. For example, when a hearing is not held within
45 days as required by NAD legislation, certain factors may have caused
the delay (i.e., the appellant waived the 45-day requirement, or a
hearing officer was unable to schedule the hearing within the
timeframes because of a heavy caseload). Similar status codes should be
used for other timeframes designated by legislation, regulations, or
the director's instructions. We concluded that this type of information
is necessary to evaluate the division's compliance with legislative
requirements and to ensure the efficient use of resources.
Additionally, we found that NAD assigns new case numbers to
remanded cases. Thus, timeframes allowed for all remand cases are the
same as for those required for new evidentiary hearings and
determinations. We concluded that the director should establish
appropriate timeframes for remand cases to ensure that the appellant is
provided a timely determination, and that NAD should keep track of the
remand cases to ensure that those timeframes are met. (See Finding No.
3.)
Ineffective Management Reports
NAD's MIS produces 13 standard management reports through SAS. We
concluded that the standard management reports were inefficient and
ineffective. In the past, RD has provided a SAS programmer to query
data fields and produce custom reports. However, as of November 1,
1996, RD no longer provides this assistance to NAD. Because NAD no
longer has the capability to query on specific data fields in order to
produce custom reports, it must now rely solely on its standard
management reports.
The ``Hearing Officer Backlog Report'' and the ``Overdue Hearing
Decision Report'' are generated by NAD's National Office. However, NAD
personnel told us that both reports utilize the date that the appeal
request is made and are considered overdue when more than 75 days have
passed. Therefore, these reports do not reflect whether the appropriate
timeframes were met. Additionally, questions concerning the status of
the hearings must be investigated by the individual regions. In many
instances, regions must contact the appropriate hearing officer to
follow up on possibly overdue hearings or determinations.
To create the reports, regional management assistants must retrieve
information from each of the two subsystems within the MIS and must
manually calculate the totals for overdue hearings, decisions, and
caseload reports per hearing officer and per region. The management
assistants must also rely heavily on individual casefiles and hearing
officers as well as ``NASTRACK'' screens to follow up on cases for
which NAD may potentially exceed timeframes or has apparently exceeded
them, and to verify the overall accuracy of the reports. Management
assistants also told that NAD's MIS was inefficient because only 4 of
12 reports available to the regions provided useful information in
determining the status of the hearings. The reports include the
--reversed, upheld, modified report,
--overdue hearing officer's report,
--overdue decision report, and
--suspended hearing report.
NAD's standard management reports do not provide information useful
in monitoring the performance of personnel such as hearing officers.
For example, we noted that there were no reports to show the number of
times that an individual hearing officer was reversed by a reviewing
official or the backlog associated with individual hearing officers.
Also, there were no reports to evaluate regional performance (i.e.,
summary of the number of times hearing officers within the region were
reversed, or backlog by region), or reviewing officer performance.
Recommendation No. 1b (To the NAD Director)
Update the MIS in order to provide necessary information to ensure
that
--NAD provides appellants timely determinations and complies with
legislative timeframes, and
--management reports contain relevant information, provide a means
for measuring the performance of the division at all levels,
and provide tools for determining where resources are needed.
NAD Response
In its March 21, 1997, response, NAD replied:
One of the highest priorities of NAD is to upgrade its current
Management Information System (MIS) in order to provide more accurate
and timely data, as well as to provide a more effective monitoring tool
to ensure timely hearings and determinations. NAD has requested special
initiative funds in fiscal year 1998 to achieve this priority. The
request for additional funds stated that the current tracking system
was put in production in 1989 to track former Farmers Home
Administration (FmHA) appeals and does not fulfill NAD's monitoring and
reporting needs. Additionally, the current MIS limits the ability of
NAD to furnish the Secretary, the Congress, and other interested
parties information regarding the appeals handled by NAD. This vital
initiative is being coordinated with the Department's OIRM [Office of
Information Resources Management].
OIG Position
We concur with NAD's management decision for this recommendation.
Training from NAD and FSA Could be Improved
Finding No. 5
Our review disclosed that NAD's training program has not provided
the support needed to ensure complete and accurate determinations. Past
training was provided by judicial colleges which emphasized judicial
training for administrative law judges. More recent training provided
overviews of how the farm agencies operate day-to-day with some indepth
instruction relating to how agency decisions are made. However, the
training has not provided NAD's staff with information needed to
reinforce their current hearing and review skills or to understand why
and under what authorities agencies make decisions. As a result,
hearing and review officers have made errors at the basic level and
have inappropriately made decisions that are reserved by law or
regulations to the agencies (see Finding No. 2). We also found that FSA
needs to provide further training to State and county personnel to
ensure that adverse decisions are clear and sufficiently supported.
We concluded that NAD training should be directed toward teaching
and reinforcing basic skills related to conducting administrative
hearings, rendering administrative hearing decisions, and understanding
the authorities of hearing officers. The training should help ensure
that hearing officers utilize only relevant criteria and evidence and
limit their determinations to whether the agencies complied with
applicable criteria and considered accurate and relevant evidence in
making their adverse decisions. Hearing officers should be trained to
avoid broad issues and ensure that determinations address whether the
adverse decisions were erroneous. The training should also be directed
toward the following areas. (See Finding No. 3.)
--Preponderance of evidence standard
--Burden of proof
--Equitable relief
--Remands
--Acceptance of oral testimony
--Acceptance and use of OGC legal opinions
--Use of subpoena power
Our evaluation also disclosed that NAD had not implemented a
quality assurance review system. Such reviews should be used to
identify individual and organizational training needs as well as
identify needed policy and procedure updates, and assist in evaluating
how well NAD is achieving its mission.
FSA should provide additional training to its State and county
office personnel to improve the quality of the adverse decisions and
documentation, especially adverse decision letters, supporting the
decisions. The training should help ensure that COC's and STC's
adequately document their adverse decisions (i.e., clearly show the
basis for their determinations including summarizing applicable
criteria and evidence) and provide sufficient information to the
participants and to NAD through their adverse decision letters and any
subsequent correspondence when necessary. (See Finding No. 1.)
Recommendation No. 5a (To the NAD Director)
Provide training to review and hearing staff which is directed
toward teaching and reinforcing basic skills needed to conduct hearings
and reviews and issue appropriate determinations, and which focuses on
explaining the differences between the authorities of NAD and those
granted to the agencies.
NAD Response
In its March 21, 1997, response, NAD replied:
NAD is providing regional training in the area of writing
determinations, conducting hearings, and exercising the authorities of
NAD this fiscal year. Additional training has been scheduled for fiscal
year 1998 in the adjudicative process. Further, each employee of NAD is
developing individual training plans in coordination with the Planning,
Training, and Quality Control section of NAD. These individual plans
include basic curriculum, established by the Deputy Director for
Hearings and Administration, as well as advanced courses related to the
employee's job responsibilities.
OIG Position
We concur with NAD's management decision for this recommendation.
Recommendation No. 5b (To the NAD Director)
Establish a quality assessment review system.
NAD Response
In its March 21, 1997, response, NAD replied:
The Planning, Training, and Quality Control (PTQC) Section of NAD
was established in 1996 to address this area as well as training and
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). The PTQC
Section of NAD has established a quality assessment review system for
hearing and review determinations. The assessment reviews will evaluate
the quality of hearing determinations; identify common proficiencies
and weaknesses to determine training needs; and satisfy GPRA Annual
Performance Plan goals. A final report on the review will be submitted
annually to the Director. The staff of the PTQC Section has randomly
selected 36 cases, 12 from each region, for review in fiscal year 1997
and plans on selecting a minimum of 48 cases in fiscal year 1998. The
number of cases reviewed will increase in future years.
OIG Position
We concur with NAD's management decision for this recommendation.
Recommendation No. 5c (To the FSA Administrator)
Provide additional training to State and county office personnel
designed to improve the quality of their adverse decisions and assist
them in understanding the documentation needed to support the adverse
decisions.
FSA Response
In its March 21, 1997, response, FSA replied that it ``accepts and
agrees with the findings and recommendations of the audit.''
OIG Position
FSA's response did not specify the actions it plans to take for
this recommendation. To reach a management decision, we need to be
informed of the actions to be taken and the timeframe for carrying them
out.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01FE10.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01FE10.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01FE10.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01FE10.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01FE10.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01FE10.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01FE10.012
EXHIBIT B--SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR HEARING OFFICER AND DIRECTOR
DETERMINATIONS
HEARING OFFICER DETERMINATIONS BY NAD REGION AND AGENCY
[October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency
Reversed Agency Upheld Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAST:
FSA......................................................... 117 366 23
RD.......................................................... 116 523 17
NRCS........................................................ 4 36 1
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................................... 237 925 41
===============================================
WEST:
FSA......................................................... 256 433 68
RD.......................................................... 87 196 6
NRCS........................................................ 10 15 1
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................................... 353 644 75
===============================================
SOUTH:
FSA......................................................... 293 274 32
RD.......................................................... 165 371 10
NRCS........................................................ 4 12 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................................... 462 657 42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATIONS APPELLANT REVIEW REQUESTS
[October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing Hearing
Officer Officer Modified Total
Reversed Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSA......................................................... 13 531 14 558
RD.......................................................... 3 317 ........... 320
NRCS........................................................ ........... 48 ........... 48
---------------------------------------------------
TOTAL................................................. 16 896 14 926
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATIONS APPELLANT REVIEW REQUESTS
[October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing Hearing
Officer Officer Modified Total
Reversed Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSA......................................................... 101 105 8 214
RD.......................................................... 11 6 20 37
NRCS........................................................ ........... 1 ........... 1
---------------------------------------------------
TOTAL................................................. 112 112 28 252
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The tables presented in this exhibit were compiled from information contained in NAD's ``fiscal year 1996
Annual Report.''
EXHIBIT C--SUMMARY OF DEFICIENCIES CITED IN FINDINGS NOS. 1 AND 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINDING NO. 1 (ADVERSE DECISION FINDING NO. 2
LETTERS) (HEARING OFFICER
----------------------------------- DETERMINATIONS)
NEITHER THE ---------------------
NAD LOG NUMBER AGENCY EVIDENCE CRITERIA EVIDENCE RELEVANT RELEVANT
NOR THE CITED/ CITED/ CRITERIA EVIDENCE
CRITERIA EEVIDENCE CRITERIA NOT NOT
CITED NOT CITED NOT CITED ADDRESSED ADDRESSED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95000494E........................ RD.................. ........... ......... ......... X X
95001719E........................ FSA................. ........... ......... ......... X X
95001333S........................ FSA................. ........... ......... X X X
95001677S........................ FSA................. ........... ......... X X X
95001368S........................ FSA................. X ......... ......... ......... .........
95000487W........................ FmHA \1\............ ........... ......... ......... X X
95001166W........................ FSA................. ........... ......... X ......... .........
95001121W........................ FSA................. X ......... ......... X X
95001816V \2\.................... FSA................. ........... ......... ......... ......... .........
95001168S........................ FSA................. ........... ......... X X X
95001492S........................ FSA................. X ......... ......... X X
95200026S........................ FSA................. ........... ......... X X X
95001634E........................ FSA................. X ......... ......... X X
96000613S........................ FSA................. X ......... ......... ......... .........
95001143W........................ FSA................. ........... ......... X X X
95001142W........................ FSA................. ........... ......... X X X
9500104OW........................ FSA................. ........... X ......... X X
9500111OW........................ FSA................. ........... ......... ......... X .........
95001588W........................ FSA................. ........... ......... X ......... .........
95001335S \3\.................... FSA................. ........... ......... ......... X X
95001334S........................ FSA................. ........... ......... ......... ......... .........
95001707S........................ FSA................. ........... X ......... ......... .........
95001328S........................ FSA................. ........... X ......... ......... .........
95001706S........................ FSA................. ........... X ......... ......... .........
95001353S \3\.................... FSA................. ........... X ......... X X
96000781E........................ FSA................. ........... ......... ......... X X
96000846E........................ FSA................. ........... ......... ......... X X
95002271E........................ FSA................. X ......... ......... X X
96001275E........................ FSA................. X ......... ......... ......... .........
96001454E \4\.................... FSA................. ........... X ......... X X
95002249E........................ FSA................. ........... ......... ......... X X
96000435E........................ FSA................. ........... ......... X X X
96000870E........................ FSA................. ........... X ......... X X
96000468E........................ FSA................. ........... ......... ......... X X
96000914E \5\.................... FSA................. ........... ......... ......... X X
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................................ 7 7 9 25 24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This case involves the farm operating loan program which is now administered by FSA.
\2\ There was no adverse decision letter in the hearing record.
\3\ The FSA representative attending the hearings improperly determined that the 90-day rule applied.
\4\ This case was also recorded as NAD No. 96000756E.
\5\ There was no adverse decision letter in the hearing record.
NAD DECISIONS
Question. What is the Department doing to ensure that the appeals
process is not biased against producers?
Answer. The Director has issued specific guidance in a NAD
Directive, which is provided for the record. Bias is not established by
percentages of results, but in a failure to conform to the highest
standards of integrity and objectivity in applying the law. NAD adheres
to such standards.
[The information follows:]
March 19, 1999.
National Appeals Division Directive No. NAD-98-08
DISQUALIFICATION OR RECUSAL FROM AN APPEAL
Purpose: The purpose of this directive is to clarify National
Appeals Division (NAD) policy on disqualification or recusal from an
appeal case. This policy is in addition to, and not in lieu of, any
requirements regarding conflict of interest or bias imposed on United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) employees by Federal statutes
(including civil rights laws), particularly 18 U.S.C. 201-209, the
Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5
CFR 2635), and USDA policies and regulations applicable to employee
conduct.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6992, 7 CFR part 11.
Background: The mission of NAD is to conduct impartial
administrative appeal hearings and reviews. The proper adjudication of
NAD appeal cases requires an unbiased adjudicating official with no
personal interest in the outcome of the case, i.e., a neutral decision
maker. The question of impartiality in NAD cases usually takes on one
of two forms: bias and conflict of interest. For the purpose of this
directive the term ``Adjudicating Officer'' refers to Hearing Officers,
Appeals Officers, the Deputy Director for Hearings and Administration,
the Deputy Director for Planning, Training and Quality Control and the
Director, NAD.
Policy:
Conflict of interest
A conflict of interest in an appeal can arise in several instances.
Examples include, but are not limited to, cases where the Adjudicating
Official has a close or familial relationship with a party to the
appeal, a financial interest in the outcome of the appeal, or any other
circumstance where a gain or loss to the Adjudicating Official flows
directly from the appeal determination and interferes with the ability
to make an impartial determination.
As a matter of practice, the Adjudicating Official should be
attentive to any conflict of interest or the appearance thereof in
every case assigned. When such instances occur, Hearing Officers should
notify the Assistant Director for the region that they must be recused
from the appeal case. Appeals Officers will likewise notify the
Supervisory Appeals Officer. When allegations of a conflict of interest
are leveled at the Adjudicating Official by either party to the appeal,
the Adjudicating Official will notify his/her supervisor, as
appropriate and will either recuse himself/herself based on his/her own
assessment of the validity of the allegations, or make note in the
appeal record that the allegations are without merit. Should the
Director recuse himself/herself on an appeal, the Director will assign
the case to another Adjudicating Official.
Bias
The concept of bias is more subtle than conflict of interest and
more complex to deal with in that it rarely arises as a result of self-
assessment by the Adjudicating Official, but usually surfaces as an
allegation by a party to the appeal. In NAD appeals, bias is usually
alleged as: (1) a prejudgment based on prior rulings (either with the
same parties or in a similar case) or attitude toward an issue, or (2)
a personal bias (attitude toward a person) expressed as partiality,
animosity or favoritism. Prior rulings on the same or similar case, a
point of view or prejudgment about regulations, policy or law are
rarely grounds for disqualification or recusal. However, personal bias,
can be, if proven or admitted. The ethical responsibilities of the
Adjudicating Official require recusal if personal bias will affect
impartiality. When allegations of bias are made by a party to an
appeal, the Adjudicating Official will either recuse himself/herself,
if appropriate, or make note in the appeal record that the allegations
were made but have no merit.
Responsibilities of supervisory personnel: Assistant Directors for
the regions, and the Supervisory Appeals Officer should exercise good
judgment in assigning or reassigning cases where there is the
appearance of a conflict of interest or bias.
DAIRY OPTIONS PILOT PROGRAM
Question. Please provide this Committee with an update on the
status of the Dairy Options Pilot Program.
Answer. The Dairy Options Pilot Program (DOPP) Round II, Notice of
Availability was published in the Federal Register on Thursday,
February 24, 2000. Producer training sessions are scheduled to begin in
some States during late March and early April. All producer Round II
DOPP training sessions will conclude by late September, 2000.
Major changes for Round II include the following:
--Producers choosing to participate in DOPP can submit a completed
application (contract) within 2 weeks from the date of
training. (In Round I, producers were required to sign a
contract before they were permitted to attend the training
session.)
--The DOPP producer contract will specifically allow participants to
refrain from buying milk contract options for future sale if
such a strategy is not in their best interest at the time.
(Round I contract language required that participants buy
contract options equivalent to a minimum of 100,000 pounds.)
--The time that participants have to purchase contract options has
been expanded from 2 months to 4 months from the date of the
training.
--The forward horizon over which participants can hedge has been
expanded from 6 months (from the date contract options are
purchased) to 12 months (from the date of training).
Question. During the oral questioning, you indicated that the
Department planned to scale up on the DOPP. How, specifically, does the
Department plan to do this?
Answer. Section 191 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996, limited the Secretary of Agriculture from operating
a pilot options program in more than 100 counties. During Round I of
the DOPP, the program was operated in 38 counties in seven States.
During Round II, 61 counties in 32 States were selected. DOPP will be
available in the following States and counties: Maricopa County,
Arizona; Marin and Sonoma counties, California; Weld County, Colorado;
Gilchrist and Okeechobee counties, Florida; Morgan and Putnam counties,
Georgia; Gooding, Jerome, and Twin Falls counties, Idaho; Clinton and
Washington counties, Illinois; Elkhart and Marshall counties, Indiana;
Clayton, Dubuque, and Winneshiek counties, Iowa; Nemaha County, Kansas;
Adair and Barren counties, Kentucky; Carroll and Frederick counties,
Maryland; Franklin County, Massachusetts; Allegan, Clinton, and Sanilac
counties, Michigan; Fillmore and Wabasha counties, Minnesota; Webster
and Wright counties, Missouri; Gage County, Nebraska; Chaves, Lea, and
Roosevelt counties, New Mexico; Madison and Wyoming counties, New York;
Iredell County, North Carolina; Ashtabula, Mercer, and Wayne counties,
Ohio; Adair and Mayes counties, Oklahoma; Marion and Washington
counties, Oregon; Lebanon and Tioga counties, Pennsylvania; Deuel and
Grant counties, South Dakota; McMinn County, Tennessee; Archer County,
Texas; Cache and Utah counties, Utah; Washington County, Vermont;
Franklin and Rockingham counties, Virginia; Skagit, Snohomish, and
Whatcom counties, Washington; Barron and Shawano counties, Wisconsin.
FORAGE CROP INSURANCE PROGRAM
Question. Over the years, farmers have complained that insurance
for forage is far too limited, that payments are not always made when
they are warranted due to inadequate data collection of forage
production. This has particularly been a problem for producers who have
historically grown forage for on-farm use and not for sale. Please
review for the Committee the status of forage insurance and steps the
Department has taken to improve the forage crop insurance program.
Answer. The Risk Management Agency (RMA) currently has three basic
programs for insuring forage: (1) actual production history (APH) plan
for forage production, (2) a dollar plan for forage seeding, and (3) a
group risk plan (GRP). We will provide for the record more details of
how the programs operate, steps taken to improve them, and their
current status.
[The information follows:]
The forage production APH program and the forage seeding dollar
plan have been in existence for more than 20 years, but recently
improved through a proposed and final rule in the Federal Register for
the 2001 crop year. The APH forage production program is an individual
yield based program and improvements include: allowing optional units,
providing for acreage reporting dates to be based on regional
differences for program flexibility, providing year round coverage for
certain California counties, allowing direct marketing, and simplifying
the program by eliminating the Winter Coverage Endorsement and building
the winter coverage protection into the policy provisions. The forage
seeding program has been improved by: adding insurance dates for
California and South Dakota, providing for acreage reporting dates to
be based on regional differences for program flexibility, allowing an
increased replanting payment, if allowed by the Special Provisions,
allowing replanting payments in certain California counties, and
removing planted acreage requirements for qualifying for a replanting
payment.
The GRP forage program was first piloted the 1994 crop year in
Minnesota and Wisconsin. While the program remains a pilot, it has been
expanded to additional counties in 8 States. For the 1998 crop year,
RMA added acreage intended for rotational grazing as insurable acreage.
RMA's determination of payment yield by county and by year is based, in
part, on the National Agricultural Statistic Service (NASS) county
yield for harvested acres. RMA is currently evaluating methodology and
overall effectiveness of the GRP forage program and consulting with
other Federal agencies whose data is used for program determinations.
RMA is also using a Fellow from the American Academy for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) to help identify other ways to insure
forage.
In addition to the programs mentioned above, RMA continues to
research options for insuring the quality of forage produced under the
Forage Production Policy. In 1999, RMA began offering a Rangeland and
Pasture Group Risk Plan. The program is being piloted in 12 counties in
Montana, with 2 million acres insured under this policy in its first
year. In 2001, RMA plans to offer an insurance product covering
producers of forage seed in seven States. RMA is also researching a
rangeland and pasture APH product to provide individual coverage for
rangeland and pasture producers. These initiatives have included
consultation with forage specialists and forage growers to determine
their needs.
In 1999, there were 14,000 policies in effect for forage; total
acreage insured was approximately 3,680,000 acres. States with the most
acreage insured were Wisconsin and Minnesota; in other major producing
areas such as Nebraska, Colorado, California and Oregon, participation
in the forage insurance program is much lower.
RMA has conducted numerous listening sessions with growers of hay
and forage in an attempt to determine concerns of producers. The major
concern is the need for quality provisions in the current Forage
Production policy. RMA is currently developing a quality provision
which will be included in the forage production policy in the future.
Many producers are not interested in a risk management tool for
forage production because they produce forage for on-the-farm use only.
Since they don't consider this a marketable crop, they often do not
keep records. Growers have also advised that in some markets, most
notably in California--the nation's largest forage producing area--the
ability of growers to harvest multiple cuttings per year provides them
with a spread of risk sufficient to preclude interest in a risk
management tool.
Question. Are there any legislative changes required to provide
meaningful insurance for forage producers, particularly for those
farmers who grow forage for on-farm feed?
Answer. No legislative changes are required for RMA to continue its
efforts to improve the insurance options available for forage producers
including those who grow forage for on-farm feed.
MILK PRICE PROTECTION
Question. In the recently announced safety net proposal, the
Administration proposed a new program to provide livestock producers
with price protection. Why hasn't the Administration proposed something
comparable to provide milk price protection?
Answer. At this time, RMA has neither the legislative authority nor
the funding to offer a milk price insurance program or livestock
insurance. RMA currently has the Dairy Options Pilot program to help
dairy farmers manage risk. The livestock proposal is also for a pilot-
scale program. RMA would need to evaluate the performance of both types
of programs before expanding them to a national scale.
Question. How could a milk price protection program be structured:
Answer. We have consulted with private insurers who are studying
how best to design a milk price insurance program. They inform us that
they would begin by trying to adapt the livestock price design to milk,
but are unsure if it will work. At this point there are uncertainties
involving the availability of price data as well as the different sales
patterns--daily for milk, occasionally for cattle.
FSA COUNTY OFFICE PERSONNEL
Question. I understand the Department intends to propose
legislation to convert all non-Federal FSA employees to Federal
employee status in 2000.Is there a cost associated with this
conversion? If so, what?
Answer. The conversion of all non-Federal county office employees
to Federal status in fiscal year 2000 will move all employees under one
personnel system and improve efficiency of Agency operations. It is not
anticipated that the conversion will have a significant cost effect on
agency operations.
Question. Have the Federal employee union representatives expressed
an opinion on this proposal? If so, what?
Answer. We are unaware of any employee union comments on the
specific proposal to convert non-Federal county office employees to
Federal status, with their tenure.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Question. The Resource Conservation and Development Program has
been valuable for the rural communities in Wisconsin. Unfortunately,
the last remaining RC&D Council in Wisconsin--Glacierland--has not yet
received official designation by the Secretary. This is despite an
increase in fiscal year 2000 appropriations for RC&D which Congress
directed be spent to designate new councils. What is the status of the
designation application of Glacierland RC&D?
Answer. There are currently 315 RC&D areas nationwide, including
five in the State of Wisconsin. The Glacierland RC&D applied for
designation in may, 1997. Although the fiscal year 2000 appropriation
provides an increase of $265,000 for RC&D, this funding is needed to
cover pay and other cost increases. Similarly, the additional funds
proposed in the fiscal year 2001 Budget are requested to cover cost
increases, rather than to increase the number of designated areas.
DEBT FOR NATURE
Question. With declining farm income and increased environmental
pressures on agricultural lands in Wisconsin, there is a growing farmer
interest in the FSA debt forgiveness provisions of the Debt for Nature
program. However, I understand that existing funding for Conservation
Operations may be inadequate to meet demand for this valuable program.
In order to meet estimated demand for Debt for Nature without reducing
existing conservation services, what level of increase in Conservation
Technical Assistance would be required.
Answer. NRCS estimates that field efforts to address 31,000
contracts affecting 4.2 million acres would require over $50 million in
technical assistance funding and could require up to 775 staff years of
effort. This estimate is based on a 20 percent participation rate in
the program by the 157,000 borrowers who have loans secured by real
estate. In some states, such as Wisconsin, landowner interest is very
high and preliminary efforts to deliver the program reveal that the
participation rate may be greater if a concerted effort is made to
market the program. In addition to technical assistance it would be
important for financial assistance authority and funding to be
available.
FLOOD CONTROL STRUCTURE REHABILITATION
Question. The fiscal year 2000 appropriations act included language
directing the $8 million be available for technical and financial
assistance for pilot rehabilitation of upstream structures in four
states. Please provide the status of this effort in terms of criteria
for locating pilot areas and a timetable for action.
Answer. NRCS is currently working with local communities, project
sponsors and state dam safety officials in Ohio, Wisconsin,
Mississippi, and New Mexico on their high priority dam rehabilitation
projects. The projects underway are those that have some of highest
risk to public health and safety. These projects will demonstrate the
variety of alternatives that will be involved and issues that will be
encountered with rehabilitation, as well as the many benefits. We are
currently assisting project sponsors with planning, design and
implementation. There is currently over $540 million in known dam
rehabilitation needs nationwide and communities in these 4 States are
already on the waiting list for assistance. NRCS has provided watershed
project sponsors the opportunity to apply for Pilot Rehabilitation
Project funds provided in the fiscal year 2000 Appropriation Bill.
Construction should begin during this summer and continue through 2001.
Question. Has the Department established a priority national
listing of endangered structures, and if so, what criteria was used and
please provide a copy.
Answer. The Department has not established a priority national
listing of endangered structures. Currently there is no statutory
authority, other than annual appropriation language to conduct an
assessment or provide assistance.
Question. If not, are there plans to do so? Explain.
Answer. Since there is no statutory authority for rehabilitation,
there are no plans to develop criteria for ranking endangered
structures. The Administration's budget includes $4 million in subsidy
budget authority for a new $60 million loan program to assist State and
local governments that wish to rehabilitate dams. None of the costs for
rehabilitation activities (including any technical assistance costs
such as planning, design, and engineering costs) shall be borne by the
Department of Agriculture. If NRCS provided technical assistance, all
costs would be required to be reimbursed by watershed sponsors.
CONSERVATION AND DAIRY
Question. There is growing concern among dairy farmers about the
impact of state and federal environmental restrictions and the lack of
voluntary conservation programs to assist them. With the exception of
EQIP, other conservation programs have been geared primarily to
cropland and crop producers. Please tell this Committee how the
Department plans to meet the conservation needs of dairy farmers under
existing programs as well as under the Administration's new
conservation initiative.
Answer. Under the proposed conservation programs proposed as part
of the Administration's Farm Safety Net, more farmers would be included
in national conservation programs and more funding would be available
for current USDA conservation programs. The Conservation Security
Program (CSP) would be open to farmers and ranchers nationwide who
voluntarily practice good stewardship on cropland, pasture and range
grazing land, hayland, and other agricultural lands for the production
of agricultural products. Thus, many dairy farmers would be eligible
for CSP. The CSP, proposed to be funded in the amount of $600 million
in both fiscal years 2001 and 2002, would provide direct annual
payments to producers to financially recognize them for good land
stewardship that produces the environmental benefits which we all
enjoy--clean water and air, reduced soil erosion, improved wildlife
habitat, and sustainable soil. Payment levels would be based on the
comprehensiveness of producers' conservation efforts. The $125 million
increase in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program would mean
that 50 percent more farmers and ranchers would receive cost share to
implement conservation practices. Of this increase, 50 percent must be
targeted for livestock production. The announced increases in other
programs would be available to eligible dairy farmers as well,
including the Wetland Reserve Program to enroll 250,000 acres, the
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program to $50 million per year, the
Farmland Protection Program to $65 million per year, the Conservation
Reserve Program to 40 million cumulative acres, and the ``continuous
sign-ups'' bonuses under the Conservation Reserve Program to $125
million in fiscal years 2001 and 2002. $100 million in continuous
signup bonuses will be provided in fiscal year 2000.
In addition to the technical and financial assistance that would be
provided through the Conservation Initiative, a total of nearly $56
million in technical assistance will be specifically directed to animal
feeding operation (AFO) owners this fiscal year through the
Conservation Technical Assistance activity and will increase to $88
million next fiscal year.
Question. Additionally, there is concern that NRCS has insufficient
resources to help livestock producers develop nutrient management plans
under the time frame proposed under the Unified Strategy for Animal
Feeding Operations. In order to help livestock and dairy producers meet
the deadlines of the strategy, how much additional staffing would be
required and is that reflected in the Administration's fiscal year 2001
budget proposal?
Answer. NRCS estimates that approximately 300,000 animal feeding
operation (AFO) owners and operators will seek NRCS comprehensive
nutrient management planning technical and financial assistance.
Preliminary information derived from the NRCS Workload Analysis System
indicates that it takes, on average, 235 hours of technical assistance
to plan, design, and provide appropriate oversight, according to NRCS
technical standards, the components related to manure management for a
typical AFO. This average is currently under review to adjust for
expected efficiencies. NRCS anticipates that partners will contribute
about 14 percent annually, or about 335 FTEs per year--their expected
level for fiscal year 2000. Assuming that the remainder is done by NRCS
and that CNMP planning is completed in 2009, and that CNMP
implementation assistance is needed through 2012, preliminary estimates
indicate that NRCS will need approximately 2,935 FTEs per year over the
next 10 years. Fiscal year 2001 budget levels propose approximately 800
FTEs for AFO planning and implementation assistance.
CONSERVATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Question. The budget request includes an increase in the
Conservation Operations account. We continue to hear concerns from
conservation districts and from other stakeholders that the USDA
county-based delivery network is under increasing strain due to
declining staff and increasing workload. Some have suggested that the
increase in the budget may not be sufficient to meet current demand for
conservation assistance let alone the new conservation initiative. In
any case, if the $1.3 billion in new conservation programs included in
the Farm Safety Net Initiative is enacted, I expect that problem will
be exacerbated. Will your requested budget levels for Conservation
Operations be sufficient to carry out the conservation programs
currently authorized and those included in the new initiative?
Answer. The requested funding levels for the Conservation Technical
Assistance program and the CCC funded mandatory conservation programs
in the Farm Safety Net proposal provide sufficient technical assistance
to implement these expanded programs. Specifically, within Conservation
Operations, the President's Budget proposes an $86 million increase and
the farm safety net proposal includes language to provide an additional
$75 million in fiscal year 2001 for technical assistance related to
certain conservation programs including the Conservation Reserve
Program.
COUNTY-BASED STAFFING LEVELS
Question. Concern about inadequate staffing at USDA Service Centers
has not been limited to conservation. We've seen, in particular,
problems with the delivery of emergency assistance because of
inadequate staffing levels. Would you also comment on the other county-
based agencies in regard to their staffing needs?
Answer. Staffing levels in all three of the county-base agencies
have declined below the levels projected in the Department's
streamlining plan and reflect levels that can be supported given
current budgets and other demands, such as the need to maintain
information technology (IT) systems. Recent budgets for these agencies
have been developed on the basis that funding would be provided for
implementation of a Common Computing Environment (CCE) that would
provide a single, modern system to serve the needs of the agencies and
their customers more efficiently than the patchwork of the existing
systems. Actual appropriations for the CCE have fallen far short of
requested and needed levels, meaning that agency staffs do not have the
benefit of modern technology and agencies must continue to maintain
aging systems. Further, in the case of Rural Development, the fiscal
year 2000 appropriation or salaries and expenses was $8 million below
the request.
Question. If there is additional emergency assistance provided in
fiscal year 2001, will the Administration's budget proposal for county
staffing be sufficient to deliver that assistance in a timely manner?
Answer. The FSA budget proposal does not include any assumption of
emergency assistance in fiscal year 2001, other than a small amount of
carryover activity for programs legislated in fiscal year 2000. If
additional emergency assistance legislation is enacted, we will work
with OMB and the Congress to address requirements.
CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM
Question. In the fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Act, three
separate general provisions were included that placed limitations or
required changes to the Conservation Reserve Program. These are found
in sections 763, 764, and 765. Please describe the effects of these
provisions on the implementation of the CRP in fiscal year 2000 and
include information regarding how these provisions affected farmer
participation and the conservation goals of the program.
Answer. The effects of Sections 763, 764, and 765 on the
implementation of the CRP in fiscal year 2000, along with other related
information will be provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
Section 763 rescinds Section 1232(a)(11) of the Food Security Act
of 1985, as amended (1985 Act), commonly referred to as Conservation
Reserve Program Highly Erodible Land (CRP HEL). Because this section
amended the 1985 Act, no further action is necessary. The provisions of
section 763 may increase farmer participation in the program and are
consistent with the goals of the program to reduce soil erosion,
promote water quality, and enhance wildlife habitat. The Farm Service
Agency amended 7 CFR part 1410 withdrawing CRP HEL as a producer
obligation and issued instructions to the field implementing this
section.
Section 764 permits land to be enrolled with minimal environmental
value at much greater cost by prohibiting implementation of FSA's
Notice CRP-338 which was issued with NRCS concurrence regarding contour
grass strips. Section 764 permits enrollment of these existing strips
installed according to NRCS standards. Enrollment of this land with
little erosion improvement would cost an estimated $25 per ton compared
to the historical program average for cost-share practices of $.62 per
ton. Producers utilizing this provision would be required to refund the
federal cost of any remaining value of the federal cost of the original
installation. The provisions of section 764 will increase farmer
participation in the program but appear to be inconsistent with the
goals of the program to reduce soil erosion.
Instructions implementing section 764 are in development for
issuance to field offices.
Section 765 provided that none of the funds made available under
the Act could be used to implement Notice CRP-327 or any related
administrative action, but further clarified that the section does not
apply to any lands for which there is not full compliance with the
conservation practices required under terms of the CRP contract. Notice
CRP-327 prohibited commercial shooting preserves on CRP acreage.
The Farm Service Agency worked with industry representatives in
fiscal year 2000 to develop procedures to implement the provisions of
section 765. Although fee hunting has been allowed on CRP acreage since
the program's inception, commercial shooting preserves on which the
cover is manipulated are not compatible with the authorizing statute,
which prohibits making commercial use of the forage on CRP acreage
except during droughts or other emergencies. The provisions of section
765 have had no known impact on farmer participation in the program and
although the provision includes language requiring compliance with the
CRP contract, this is difficult.
DISCONTINUATION OF SECTIONS 764 AND 765
Question. If the Department does not support continuation of these
changes in fiscal year 2001, please specify with justifications.
Answer. The Department does not support the continuation of Section
764 because:
--Contour Grass Strips were developed to address sheet and rill
erosion as rainwater washes across a field and many farmers
installed these strips according to NRCS standards which did
not require a grass cover.
--Enrollment of land with little erosion improvement would cost an
estimated $25 per ton compared to the historical program
average for cost-share practices of $.62 per ton.
--The Department also does not believe continuation of Section 765 is
necessary. FSA will continue to work with landowners and
hunting interests to maintain the purposes of CRP while
permitting fair hunting opportunities.
FUNDING FOR ROUND II EC/EZ
Question. In fiscal year 2000, specific set-asides were provided
under rural development programs for EC's and EZ's. In addition,
funding was also provided directly to benefit Round II EC/EZ's. Please
provide information relating to the distribution of funds under these
set-asides.
Answer. The $15 million in discretionary grants is distributed to
the second round empowerment zones and enterprise communities as
follows: $2 million each to the five empowerment zones and $250,000
each to the 20 enterprise communities. These funds are used in a
variety of ways, but for the most part, provide a financial base that
allows the communities to develop long-term investment strategies, and
provide a source of funds that are used to attract other investment
capital, including the Rural Development funds that are set-aside for
use by the empowerment zones and enterprise communities.
RUS FFB ACTIVITY
Question. The fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Act provided a
program level of $1.7 billion for FFB electric loans. The budget
request for fiscal year 2001 reduces this program level almost in half
even though there is very little budget authority exposure. What is the
reason for this reduction?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget request for RUS guarantee
funding totals $1.2 billion. This represents a $500 million reduction
when compared with the $1.7 billion that Congress provided in the
fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Act.
The Agency believes the additional $500 million that Congress
provided in the fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Act will help to reduce
the large backlog of loan applications the Agency has on hand. In light
of this, we believe that the $1.2 million is adequate to meet the
electric borrowers' capital needs that are anticipated during fiscal
year 2001.
Question. Why is demand not adequate given the need expressed by
the rural electric community for expanded loan programs?
Answer. There has been extensive need expressed by the rural
electric community. In a effort to meet the capital needs of the
electric borrowers while minimizing the budgetary impact, this
Administration proposed new lending authorities in the fiscal year 1999
and fiscal year 2000 budgets. We now believe we can adequately address
the demand through the FFB program.
Question. Do you think the proposed $400 million program level for
Guaranteed CFC/CoBank loans will meet the demand of borrowers as a
satisfactory alternative to reductions in Direct 5 percent and FFB loan
levels?
Answer. We are hopeful that borrowers will utilize the CFC/CoBank
alternative, if they are unwilling to utilize an FFB funded guarantee
program. The CFC/CoBank option is not intended to serve as an
alternative to the Direct (5 percent) hardship loan program. We believe
the $50 million request for hardship loans in fiscal year 2001 will be
adequate to meet the anticipated need. The flow of hardship loan
applications has slowed recently.
NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS
Question. The fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Act provided a
specific set-aside for water and wastewater programs for Native
Americans. Please provide the status on this initiative.
Answer. As provided in the fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Act, the
Rural Utilities Service has allotted $12 million for Native Americans.
That amount is being retained in the National Office reserve. State
Offices may request funds from the National Office reserve. The Rural
Utilities Service has limited individual grants to $1 million. As of
March 1, 2000, $2,555,500 has been allocated for 7 projects. Based on
inquiries received, it appears that all of the funds will be used.
WIC VENDOR ACCESSIBILITY
Question. I am concerned about the way food assistance is, in some
instances, distributed to those in need. For example, I understand USDA
is considering a rule change for the WIC program that might limit the
availability of WIC-participating retail outlets. What is the rationale
for this limitation and what impact will it have on the ability of some
WIC-eligible persons to participate in the program?
Answer. USDA policy is that WIC retailers should be accessible to
WIC recipients and that they should carry and have available all of the
WIC foods, taking into account cultural preferences. There is no effort
to reduce the number of retailers. Stakeholders are cognizant that
there is a cost to the States to adequately manage and monitor
retailers. States seek to maintain an appropriate number--balancing
recipient access and the State's ability to adequately monitor the
program to prevent abuses. We anticipate no particular change affecting
rural communities. The changes to the rules are to ensure that only
qualified retailers, accessible to recipients, are authorized.
PUERTO RICO'S EBT PROGRAM AND PROGRAM ABUSE
Question. Another distribution problem, unfortunately, is tied to
program abuse or, in some cases, rules that allow people to circumvent
the intent of nutrition programs. For example, I understand that an EBT
pilot has been implemented in Puerto Rico that has few if any
restrictions on how nutrition assistance is distributed and potentially
could impair the program's ability to get the intended benefits to the
most vulnerable participants such as children. Could you describe what
the Department is doing to curtail program abuse, and can you speak to
the situation in Puerto Rico and what you are doing to make sure
benefits are properly distributed?
Answer. First, with respect to Puerto Rico's program--based on a
congressional mandate, Puerto Rico began issuing cash nutrition
assistance benefits in lieu of food stamps in the early 1980's. Several
studies of this benefit delivery system established that it did not
significantly affect recipients' expenditures on food. In 1999, when
Puerto Rico began to pilot EBT, no new limitations were placed on the
nutrition assistance funds. However, I am told that Puerto Rico will
look into the possibility of limiting all or part of its EBT benefits
to food purchases sometime in 2001.
With respect to efforts to curtail program abuses via EBT, the
program has been having growing success. But EBT is not a panacea that
can address all program waste, fraud and abuse. And, for a cash program
like Puerto Rico has been operating, much of the anti-fraud advantages
of EBT are moot. The cash system does not have ``ineligible items'' and
trafficking.
In the continental U.S., however, the Food and Nutrition Service
aggressively tackles fraud via the EBT system.
I will ask the Food and Nutrition Service for additional detail on
both of these topics.
[The information follows:]
FNS aggressively tackles trafficking food stamp benefits for cash
to ensure benefits are used properly and not diverted from their
intended purpose. FNS actions to detect and punish store traffickers
include:
The Anti-Fraud Locator Using EBT Retailer Transactions (ALERT)
system helped the FNS Compliance Branch target its investigations of
authorized stores. In fiscal year 1999, the Compliance Branch completed
517 retailer investigations which involved the trafficking of food
stamp benefits for cash. Due to serious violations of program benefits,
including trafficking and selling ineligible items such as alcohol or
tobacco, 1,365 stores were disqualified from being able to accept food
stamps or sanctioned with Civil Money Penalties in fiscal year 1999.
To increase States' ability to finance activities to disqualify
recipient traffickers, the Food Stamp Program has issued a proposed
rulemaking which would allow the States to establish claims for the
misused benefits and to retain 35 percent of collected amounts. This
regulation is expected to be published in final this year.
Puerto Rico began issuing cash nutrition assistance program
benefits in July 1982. Studies of this benefit delivery system in 1983
and 1985 established that issuing benefits in this form did not
significantly affect recipients' expenditures on food.
Public Law 99-198 of December 23, 1985 allowed the Commonwealth to
continue using its cash program which has remained in operation since
then. A pilot EBT program was implemented in two local offices in
Puerto Rico in November 1999. This EBT project is scheduled to be
expanded to the entire Commonwealth within a year. Puerto Rico will
look into the possibility of limiting all or part of its EBT benefits
to food purchases sometime in 2001.
BREAKFAST PILOT
Question. Last year Congress provided USDA with new funding of $7
million to carry out a pilot project to research the connection between
consumption of a nutritious breakfast and academic performance. Please
provide the Committee with an update on the status of the School
Breakfast Pilot.
Answer. USDA is continuing preparations to commence the
demonstration of universal free school breakfast in School Year 2000-
2001. A rigorous study design has been developed with the assistance of
a contractor and a panel of national experts. A number of school
districts, across the nation have also expressed interest in this, and
selection of an evaluation contractor is underway.
[The information follows:]
A Federal Register notice announcing the application process for
school food authorities (SFAs) who wish to participate was published in
early December, 1999.
School districts throughout the country have expressed interest in
participating in the pilot project demonstration. A total of 383 school
districts from 43 States submitted applications. Selection of the six
school districts to participate in the pilot projects will occur in
early Spring. These districts will be selected to be geographically
dispersed, with a blend of urban and rural areas, and consideration
given to socioeconomic conditions.
In addition, the process of selecting an evaluation contractor to
collect and analyze data and produce a final report is underway. The
request for proposals (RFP) for the evaluation of the pilot projects
were mailed to over 60 potential offerors in February, 2000. We expect
to make a final selection of the evaluation contractor by early Summer.
SCHOOL BREAKFAST PARTICIPATION
Question. Several years ago, Congress eliminated funding for school
breakfast start up funds. However, in some states, including Wisconsin,
school participation in breakfast lags well behind participation in the
National School Lunch program. What steps is USDA taking to improve
participation in school breakfast?
Answer. In recent years, we have made a concerted effort to enhance
the availability of the School Breakfast Program. These efforts have
borne fruit. The number of schools participating in the program and the
number of children receiving breakfasts have more than doubled.
A number of factors undoubtedly contributed to this growth: the
start-up grants may have encouraged schools to participate because the
cost of special equipment was defrayed; also, Congress added 6 cents on
top of the basic reimbursement. And, just as importantly, schools and
communities recognized the value of school breakfasts for both health
and learning. Currently, about 7 million children participate daily at
about 70 thousand schools around the country.
Nevertheless, we are aware that participation in the breakfast
program lags far behind the numbers for the National School Lunch
Program, and we are working with our partners in the U. S. Department
of Education to help school administrators understand the contribution
that school breakfasts can make to academic achievement and to deal
with local issues such as bus schedules and to try to have schools
provide children with an environment conducive to eating school meals
and allowing them enough time to do so. We must stress, however, that
in some ways the most important factor is parental and community
involvement. If people understand that breakfast is a vital part of the
school day, they will be receptive to making the breakfast program
available in their schools and encouraging their children to eat the
breakfasts that are available to them.
SCHOOL BREAKFAST REIMBURSEMENT
Question. I am concerned by anecdotal reports that the
reimbursement schools receive for school breakfast, even for free
meals, does not cover the costs of providing the meals. Has USDA
examined this concern? If so, what has it concluded?
Answer. The Food and Nutrition Service completed a study on school
lunch and breakfast costs in the past few years. The study suggested
that the revenue stream to schools, including Federal and child
payments, exceeded the cost of meal production. Funding for breakfast
program schools generally were able to deliver meals within the maximum
reimbursement rates provided. The majority of breakfasts are reimbursed
at the ``severe need'' free meal reimbursement rate of $1.30, with many
others supported at the regular free rate, $0.21 less. Let me provide
some additional information from the study.
[The information follows:]
The Department has conducted a study, the School Lunch and
Breakfast Cost Study, concerning food costs and school revenues. The
study, on a statistically representative sample of schools which
participate in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs,
examined food preparation and other costs (e.g., utilities) which
schools incur in operating these programs, and compared these costs
with the total revenues the schools receive from USDA reimbursements,
student payments for reduced price and paid meals, and other program
revenue sources.
The study found that, overall, the revenues from all sources
obtained from reimbursable lunches exceed the cost of producing these
meals, and that `` SFAs appear to subsidize breakfasts and non-
reimbursable meals with surplus revenues derived from reimbursable
lunches.'' In other words, food service managers treat their non-profit
food service accounts as an aggregate; they balance total revenues for
all the programs they operate, but not for each program separately.
Because nearly all schools that participate in the breakfast program
also participate in the lunch program, most school food service
accounts operate on a break-even basis.
Schools with a high percentage of low-income students are also
eligible to receive additional reimbursement for breakfasts to free and
reduced price eligible students if their costs of production for these
meals exceed the regular reimbursement rates, less any payments
received from students for reduced price breakfasts. Schools may be
reimbursed for their full production costs for these breakfasts up to a
maximum rate in school year 1999-2000 of $1.30 for a ``severe need''
free meal, and $1.09 for a free breakfast. Reduced price meals are
reimbursed at $0.21 less, and paid meals are reimbursed at $0.21 in all
schools. In fiscal year 1999, ``severe need'' breakfasts accounted for
76 percent of all free and reduced price breakfasts, and 65 percent of
all program breakfasts served nationwide.
The Department is required by law to establish uniform
reimbursement rates and procedures for school food programs. These
rates may not exceed costs in a some very high cost areas.
However, the available information suggests that reimbursement
levels do not hinder schools' participation in the breakfast program.
Approximately 73 percent of schools which participate in the school
lunch program also participate in the breakfast program.
The Department's School Nutrition Dietary Assessment study found
that those which do not participate have decided not to do so based on
perceived lack of need for the program, scheduling and busing issues,
or other issues not related to the level of program reimbursements.
Therefore, it appears likely that the level of reimbursement for
breakfasts is adequate.
TEMPORARY INCREASE IN BREAKFAST REIMBURSEMENT RATE
Question. Would a temporary increase in the per meal reimbursement
for school breakfast encourage additional school participation?
Answer. It is possible that some schools might start up a program
if the initial reimbursement were higher. Although, with 73 percent of
school lunch schools in the breakfast program, and the size of the
reimbursement rate not really figuring into the decision of the other
schools not to participate, we believe the number of new schools would
not be large. While the costs could be kept down by limiting such a
proposal only to new schools, since the schools would know that the
higher rates are temporary, we think they will be reluctant to make the
investment to begin and continue to operate the breakfast program.
WIC FARMERS MARKET FUNDING DELAYS
Question. The fiscal year 2000 Appropriation Act provides for $10
million to be made available for the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition
Program within 45 days of enactment and an additional $5 million to be
made available upon a determination that caseload will be maintained.
Since for planning purposes it is important for farmers market groups
to know well in advance the level of funding available for the program,
a long delay in the availability of the contingent $5 million could
have been problematic. Have there been any problems regarding the
availability of total funding for the WIC Farmers Market program due to
the time of the release of funds?
Answer. Yes, some States have complained that delays have occurred
in program implementation due to the uncertainty created by the
contingency provision. We would much prefer that the entire
appropriation be made available at the start of the year.
IMMEDIATE AVAILABILITY OF WIC FARMERS MARKET FUNDING
Question. If the WIC Farmers Market Program funding is not moved to
the Commodity Assistance Program (as suggested in the budget request)
but instead is retained in the WIC account, would it be advisable to
include language that would immediately make available the full amount
(whether the level be $15 or $20 million) even though a contingent
amount would be based on the availability of carryover funds?
Answer. Yes, we would prefer that the full amount be made available
at the beginning of the year.
CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM POOLING
Question. In Senate Report 106-80, the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, 2000, I asked for language to be inserted that
said:
``The Committee urges the Department to provide technical
assistance and guidance to those states not maximizing the number of
children served under the Child and Adult Care Food Program in their
jurisdiction. These states should be encouraged to follow the example
of those states that pool a limited amount of Title XX with Child Care
Development Block Grant (CCDBG) funds to meet the technical requirement
of the current law.''
I also had similar language included in the Senate Report on the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and
Related Agencies Appropriations. It said:
``The Committee recognizes that some states have successfully
pooled resources from the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) to
maximize the number of children served under the Child and Adult Care
Food Program. The Committee believes that the Department could provide
technical assistance and guidance to other states so that they may use
SSBG resources to serve more children in the CACFP.''
What has the Department done to carry out the directive in Senate
Report 106-80 described above?
Answer. I know that we have done our best to carry out the intent
of this language. By encouraging States to pool funding streams with
Title XX, they can increase the number of proprietary child care
centers with 25 percent or more low income children that can
participate in CACFP. Expanding the supply and quality of child care is
a national objective, so this is very important to us. Allow me to
submit some additional information as to how we addressed this.
[The information follows:]
The issue here is the limitation on proprietary child care programs
that allows them to participate in CACFP only if 25 percent or more of
their children receive support from Title XX, a Federal social services
block grant program that assists low income children and other low
income persons. Over the years, States have found it necessary to use
more and more of their Title XX funds for purposes other than child
care, often using other funds to help the low income households with
their child care costs. This has had the unintended consequence of
disqualifying proprietary child care providers serving the same low
income children, simply because some non-Title XX support for low
income children is being used. The law, however, permits non-Title XX
money to function like Title XX money, if it is put into the same
account as some Title XX money. Thus, with a portion of funding coming
from Title XX and the rest coming from other sources, all of the funds
can function like Title XX funds for the purpose of measuring the
extent of federal support for low income children that a proprietary
child care center may be receiving. If they have 25 percent or more
supported by this pooled Title XX money, they may qualify for CACFP.
Over the past several years, the Department has provided guidance
and technical assistance to State agencies relative to the pooling of
Title XX funding. The most recent formal guidance was issued to all
Child and Adult Care Food Program State administering agencies on July
6, 1999. That memorandum informed State agencies of the Congressional
interest in and support for pooling of Title XX funding; provided
guidance on how pooling can be accomplished; and offered technical
assistance to States in establishing a pooling mechanism.
In the near future, the Department will be issuing a second
memorandum to State agencies. This memorandum will provide information
on the Department's recent efforts in this area, including the
technical assistance that has been provided to four States, three of
which are now using pooling. It will also contain a clarification to
the earlier memorandum that may facilitate other States' use of this
process.
COORDINATION WITH HHS RE NUTRITION EDUCATION
Question. What is the Department doing to coordinate with the
Department of Health and Human Services in these efforts?
Answer. We have worked with the Department of Health and Human
Services, the States and others in this effort. Allow me to have the
Food and Nutrition Service provide some additional detail.
[The information follows:]
We have worked with the Department of Health and Human Services on
this issue in the past in order to fully understand the structure of
Title XX funding to the States. We have also worked with Congressional
staff, members of the National Child Care Council (a largely
proprietary child care organization) and State Title XX and Child
Nutrition agencies. As a result of these efforts some States have
already begun pooling some portion of their Title XX funds, and other
States, including California, are moving toward pooling. The Department
issued a memorandum in 1999 encouraging States to consider this
approach, and we will be issuing a follow-up memo on this topic in the
near future.
AFTER-SCHOOL CENTERS
Question. In Senate Report 106-80, the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, 2000, I asked for language to be inserted that
said:
``The Committee urges the Secretary to develop a better strategy to
encourage participation in after-school centers by adolescents and
older children through programs available under the authorities of the
Child Nutrition Act. The Committee is concerned that members of the
qualifying age group who lack proper after-school supervision will be
more prone to participation in undesirable activities. The use of
nutritional programs should be considered an appropriate tool to
attract adolescents to a more risk-free environment which should help
improve academic performance and reduce the incidence of juvenile
crime. In addition, the Secretary is directed to provide information to
the Committee relating to the effectiveness of such a program and
provide views on the advisability of expanding the availability of free
or reduced meals under this authority to children over the age of 12.''
Question. What progress has the Department made in developing the
strategy asked for in this language?
Answer. Improved child care accessibility and quality is a national
priority. We have developed and implemented a strategy to encourage the
use of this new after school snack program authority. For example, USDA
entered into a partnership with the U.S. Department of Education (21st
Century Community Learning Centers), as well as the Department of
Justice and its numerous programs designed to help ``at risk'' youth.
USDA has also done promotional work with various organizations,
particularly the American School Food Service Association, the National
School Age Child Care Alliance, and the National Head Start Conference
and more. We have even helped develop a web site to provide one-stop-
shopping of Federal resources for local after school programs.
Please allow me to have FNS submit some additional detail on these
efforts.
[The information follows:]
The enactment of the William J. Goodling Child Nutrition
Reauthorization Act of 1998, Public Law 105-336, significantly expanded
the availability of after school snack programs. It made snack
reimbursements available to every child through age 18 in every public
and nonprofit private school of high school grade and under in the
Nation. Previously eligibility was limited to a small number of
schools, and to participants only through the age of 12. It also made
snacks available to public and nonprofit private organizations that
provide after school programs for children through age 18 in areas in
which at least half of the children are eligible for free and reduced
price meals. Such programs could operate for participants only through
age 12 prior to the Act.
Since the enactment of Public Law 105-336, the Department has
undertaken a number of activities to encourage participation in the
after school snack programs. The Department has: entered into a
partnership with the U.S. Department of Education (21st Century
Community Learning Centers), as well as the Department of Justice and
its numerous programs designed to help ``at risk'' youth; done
promotional work with a number of organizations including the American
School Food Service Association, the National School Age Child Care
Alliance, and the National Head Start Conference; conducted ``Roll
Out'' sessions in the seven Food and Nutrition Service regions; joined
other Federal agencies involved in the Federal Support to Communities
Initiative which has developed a web site to provide one-stop-shopping
of Federal resources for local after school programs; begun
participating in ``Federal Fairs'' at various sites throughout the
Nation at which agencies will promote their after school programs; and
developed and distributed an after school snack ``success stories''
booklet to State agencies. We can assure the Committee that the
Department will continue its efforts to make the availability of after
school snack programs known to those who might benefit from them.
The Department shares the Committee's belief that after school
programs are an effective way of providing supervision to a vulnerable
population and that the availability of nutrition benefits can be
helpful in drawing children to these programs. For that reason, making
these program available to school children through the age of 18 in
non-school programs, rather than only in school settings, is something
the Department would support in principle. However, given the fact that
the after school snack programs established under Public Law 105-336
are relatively new and that information on them is limited, we believe
that it is premature at this time to provide the Congress with an
assessment of their effectiveness. This is something that could be done
after two or three years of program operation.
EXPANDING AFTER SCHOOL MEALS TO CHILDREN OVER 12
Question. Also, has the Secretary developed an opinion yet on
advisability of expanding the availability of free or reduced meals in
after-school programs to children over the age of 12?
Answer. The Department has been working internally with its
regulations to provide programs with a more ``seamless'' structure,
with the idea of making it easier for schools to use school meals
programs for more of the student's nutritional needs. Because after
school programs appear to be an effective way of providing supervision
to a vulnerable population and that the availability of nutrition
benefits can be helpful in drawing children to these programs, we
certainly support in principle, the extension of after school snacks to
all school children through the age of 18 in all school and non-school
settings when the programs are primarily organized to provide care for
the children. This change would put the benefits available under the
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) on par with those in the
National School Lunch Program.
This expanded-eligibility, more seamless program structure would be
well received by the school and child care community. There would be
some additional cost that would need to be considered, which is why I
can only say we support this in principle. But this additional
flexibility in the Child and Adult Care Food Program would provide
assistance to non-school based community programs targeted to at risk
teenagers and this might reduce costly problems elsewhere, creating the
budgetary offsets that would be needed to make this change cost neutral
if not a savings on a Government-wide basis.
FOOD GLEANING
Question. For several years, the Secretary has encouraged food
gleaning. Please provide an update on USDA's efforts to encourage food
gleaning activities from both within the public and private sector.
Answer. The Department has encouraged, energized, and provided
technical assistance to private, non-profit, and corporate food
recovery and gleaning efforts. Such efforts have been increased and
incorporated into the broader Community Food Security Initiative. The
outcome is a substantial increase in the amount of excess food
collected and distributed to the hungry. However, the nonprofit groups
are not able to make the necessary infrastructure expansions on their
own to dramatically increase food recovery and gleaning efforts. In
fiscal year 2001, the Department is seeking about $5.3 million to
assist faith-based organizations and other nonprofit groups in engaging
in a wide range of food security, gleaning, and anti-hunger activities.
[The information follows:]
USDA has taken the following steps to bolster gleaning activities:
Created or aided grass-roots food recovery projects in over 40
states in conjunction with farmers and ranchers, where USDA's Farm
Service Agency has facilitated the donation of over 6 million pounds of
excess food.
--Worked with the Department of Transportation to provide support to
Second Harvest and other nonprofit groups to transport food
that is recovered and gleaned. The project has brought together
a consortium of nonprofit groups and industry representatives
in assessing needs and developing pilot projects to assist
public, private, and non-profit entities in distributing
additional food.
--Worked with the nonprofit group World Hunger Year to establish ``1-
800-GLEAN-IT,'' a toll-free hotline to provide an easy-to-reach
source of information on how to get involved in a local
gleaning or food recovery program.
--Distributed over 20,000 copies of a Citizens' Guide to Food
Recovery and Gleaning, an easy-to-use ``how to manual'' on how
to start or expand food recovery efforts. Changed USDA crop
insurance regulations to allow producers receiving crop
insurance to donate any product that is still wholesome from
fields that are partially damaged.
--Worked with the National Restaurant Association to produce a guide
for its members on how to safely donate excess food.
--Awarded 12 school districts funds to develop ``best practices'' to
increase the donations of excess food from school meals and to
develop innovative ways to engage students in fighting hunger
through community service.
--Utilized a USDA report which correlated the location of farmers'
markets to the location of food banks and other food recovery
groups to begin actively working to increase donations from
farmers' markets to food banks and other recovery groups
throughout the country.
--In collaboration with the Department of Defense, and the General
Services Administration, USDA has donated more than $8 million
worth of excess canned food.
COOPERATOR PROGRAM
Question. Beginning with fiscal year 2000, funding for the Foreign
Market Development (Cooperator) Program is mandatory. A letter from
USDA was included in the Congressional Record during Senate
consideration of the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture Appropriations Act
which indicated that the funding level for the Cooperator Program would
remain the same as in the previous year. I understand that OMB
concurred in this commitment. What was the actual program level of the
Cooperator Program in fiscal year 1999, including any carryover
funding?
Answer. For fiscal 1999, the FAS appropriation provided $27.5
million in new funding for the Cooperator Program. Drawing upon
available carry-over balances in addition to the new funding, FAS was
able to approve marketing plans of nearly $34.0 million in 1999.
Question. Does the Department intend to maintain, at least, the
total fiscal year 1999 level in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001?
If not, please explain.
Answer. Yes, the President's Budget provides $27.5 million, funded
from CCC, for the Cooperator Program in both 2000 and 2001. These
funds, coupled with carry-over balances, are sufficient to continue
marketing plans at the fiscal 1999 level.
DAIRY EXPORT INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Question. International markets in dairy trade are becoming
increasingly important to our Nation's dairy farmers. But because world
dairy markets are so badly distorted, U.S. milk producers have relied
on the Dairy Export Incentive Program to help them compete in world
markets. I am concerned, however, about the future of this program in
fiscal year 2001, given our WTO obligations to reduce both the volume
of DEIP exports as well as the value of product exported. This is
particularly a concern given the low milk prices predicted for the
duration of this year and surplus production of milk powder. Please
tell this Committee what will be the impact of our trade agreement
obligations on both the opportunities of U.S. dairy farmers in world
markets and the price depressing effect of excess product in this
country.
Answer. Beginning July 1, 2000, the United States will be in the
final year of phasing in Uruguay Round commitments limiting the volume
of subsidized exports. Limitation commitments applicable to the total
value of export subsidy bonus awards, will take effect with the
beginning of fiscal 2001.
The DEIP was originally intended to be a trade policy tool to
counteract the export subsidies and other unfair policies of competing
exporters, especially the European Union. It was not designed as either
a price support program or a surplus disposal program for dairy
products, although it clearly has provided benefits in terms of helping
support prices and moving dairy products onto world markets.
Beginning with the 1996 Farm Bill, more emphasis has been placed on
the market development aspects of the DEIP to help lay the groundwork
for expanded U.S. commercial dairy product exports in anticipation of
ongoing reforms in domestic and international dairy policies. While
difficult to quantify, the DEIP has encouraged greater interest by the
U.S. dairy industry in international markets. Today, more than 90
percent of U.S. cheese exports are unsubsidized, and exports of other
unsubsidized dairy products such as ice cream, yogurt, whey products
and many dairy based food ingredients have experienced steady growth
despite ongoing economic difficulties in Asia, Russia, South America,
and elsewhere. Although the domestic market will continue to be of
greatest importance to U.S. dairy producers, we see growing
opportunities for exports to the benefit of the entire U.S. dairy
sector.
Question. What does USDA plan to do to mitigate the impacts of
significant reductions in subsidized exports?
Answer. First, it is important to note that the Department will
continue to help facilitate commercial exports with the program. DEIP
will continue, although at a reduced level as noted in your question.
In addition, we will have to work with the U.S. dairy industry in
other export related activities, such as foreign market development
activities. For example, to help expand commercial dairy product
exports, the Foreign Agricultural Service has awarded nearly $2.5
million this year to the U.S. Dairy Export Council for a variety of
foreign market development purposes. At a time of tightened budgets for
foreign market development, the amount dedicated to promoting U.S.
dairy product exports has more than doubled since 1995. We believe this
is money well spent, having contributed to expanding non-subsidized
dairy product exports, and opportunities can only improve as Asian
economies recover, China enters the WTO, and the world economy in
general accelerates.
Question. In the event that WTO rules impair the effectiveness of
the DEIP program, what opportunities are there to include dairy
products in some form of humanitarian assistance?
Answer. Food aid and humanitarian assistance provides additional
outlets for surplus nonfat dry milk. Already we have programmed 25,000
tons of surplus milk powder for donation under the authority of section
416(b). We will continue to look for additional opportunities to
provide dairy products as part of U.S. humanitarian assistance efforts.
Question. Please provide data on expected volume of subsidized
dairy products, and the value of the subsidies for both the U.S. and
European Union when the WTO obligations are completed next year.
Answer. That information will be provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States European Union
---------------------------------------------------------------
(Dollars) (MT) (ECU) (MT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Butter and butter oil........................... 30,497,220 21,097 947,800,000 399,300
Skim milk powder................................ 82,463,935 68,201 275,800,000 272,500
Cheese.......................................... 3,635,638 3,030 341,700,000 321,300
Other milk products............................. 20,974 34 697,700,000 958,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange rate US $1 = 1.03 ECU as of February 29, 2000.
AID TO RUSSIA
Question. While food aid to Russia serves both humanitarian
objectives and as an outlet for U.S. production, concerns remain about
the food distribution process in that country. Please provide
information regarding safeguards in place to ensure proper distribution
of food to the Russian people and note any problems that have or are
occurring.
Answer. USDA took many steps to minimize any irregularities within
this very large program. The agreements with the Government of Russia
included several clauses on monitoring and the proper uses of
commodities and proceeds from the sale of commodities. A critical part
was the creation of a bilateral working group that discussed issues and
developed solutions to any irregularities.
USDA and the U.S. Embassy in Moscow assigned several monitors to
travel throughout Russia to observe commodity arrivals and speak with
recipients of the commodities to ensure that commodities were actually
received. The monitors, the working group, and the Government of Russia
prepared shipment, arrival, and distribution reports that provided a
path from the arrival of the commodity in Russia to the recipient. No
major irregularities in distribution were observed. Any discrepancies
were discussed and resolved within the bilateral working group.
A few issues arose relating to the quality of commodities, but the
bilateral working group and the U.S. industry worked with the Russian
Government and customs officials to work out these difficulties.
Finally, private voluntary organizations were instrumental in
delivering commodities to the most needy individuals and institutions.
Organizational controls and reporting requirements helped to ensure
proper distribution by these groups.
WORLD HUNGER
Question. Several years ago, you used authorities of the section
416(b) program to make surplus U.S. commodities available for donation
to overcome world hunger. Of course, the Public Law 480 programs, like
Title II, have long proven to be of vital importance to help combat
world hunger. These programs also have the added benefit of providing
an outlet for U.S. production, which will become increasingly important
as the U.S. complies with its WTO obligations. However, the budget
request for 2001 shows a major reduction in all Public Law 480 program
levels, including a significant reduction in the Title II account. In
addition, the budget indicates that section 416(b) donations during
2000 will return to more traditional (which means lower) levels. I find
this combination of facts troubling. Can you describe your
understanding of world food needs now and in the foreseeable future
and, how closely are you working with USAID to ensure that those needs
are met?
Answer. Current and foreseeable food needs are considerable. The
Economic Research Service produces an annual Food Security Assessment
which reviews the world food situation and identifies food aid needs
around the world. This is the basis on which decisions on foreign food
aid programming can be made.
The Foreign Agricultural Service and USAID meet several times each
month to coordinate the U.S. government's food aid programs. USDA,
USAID, the State Department, and OMB are members of the Food Assistance
Policy Council, chaired by USDA, that establishes policy for U.S. food
aid activities and reviews food aid allocations. In recent months, the
FAPC has met frequently to review food aid concerns around the world,
and to ensure that critical food aid needs are met on a timely basis.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE SANCTIONS
Question. Last year, considerable debate occurred in Congress on
the subject of trade sanctions and their effect on the U.S.
agricultural sector. What is the current status of international trade
sanctions that affect U.S. agriculture?
Answer. On April 28, 1999, President Clinton announced the
administration would exempt commercial sales of food, medicine and
medical equipment from future unilateral economic sanctions regimes
where it had the authority to do so, and would apply that policy
immediately, with appropriate safeguards, to currently embargoed
countries. The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control
issued regulations last July to amend the current sanctions regimes for
Iran, Libya, and Sudan to implement the new policy. This significant
step by the Administration to rationalize U.S. sanctions policy has
already resulted in food sales to Iran and Libya.
The Administration also has taken steps during the past year with
respect to sanctions imposed on certain individual countries. A summary
of those actions will be submitted for the record.
[The information follows:]
Recent administration actions on sanctions
North Korea.--On September 17, 1999, the President announced some
easing of sanctions against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
(North Korea) under the Trading with the Enemy Act, Defense Production
Act, and the Export Administration Regulations. The easing of sanctions
will allow most consumer and other non-sensitive goods to be available
for export to North Korea and will allow importation of most North
Korea-origin goods to the U.S., including raw materials. Investment in
North Korea sectors such as agriculture, mining, petroleum, timber,
cement, transport, infrastructure, travel/tourism will be permitted. To
support the goods trade, most commercial and personal funds transfer
will be allowed between U.S. and North Korean persons and transport
restrictions will be relaxed to allow commercial air and sea transport
between the U.S. and North Korea for passengers and cargo, subject to
normal regulatory requirements.
India and Pakistan.--On October 27, 1999,the President used new
authority granted by Congress in the Defense Appropriations Act to
continue waivers on all economic sanctions, including USDA agricultural
credit guarantees that apply to India under the Glenn Amendment. In the
case of Pakistan, however, the President chose to waive only sanctions
related to USDA agricultural credits and U.S. commercial bank lending.
Cuba.--On January 5, 1999, the President announced that the United
States Government would authorize case-by-case licensing of food and
agricultural exports to independent, non-governmental entities in Cuba.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE SANCTIONS
Question. Do you foresee any changes in the status of these or
other countries in the coming year in the absence of Congressional
action?
Answer. The Administration recognizes the need to rationalize
sanctions policy. The Administration's steps with regard to food,
medicine and medical equipment are appropriate first steps, and the
Congress has taken a similar step in proposing sanctions reform. It is
necessary that both branches of government work together if U.S.
sanctions policy is to be rationalized. The Administration has worked
and will continue to work with interested parties in Congress towards
achieving meaningful sanctions reform.
We continue to believe that comprehensive sanctions reform
legislation must include meaningful waiver provisions for the
President, symmetrical disciplines imposed on the executive and
legislative branches with respect to the process by which new sanctions
can be imposed, a determination that the expected gains to the United
States outweigh the expected costs to other national interests, and a
preference for multilateral rather than unilateral sanctions.
Question. Please quantify, if possible, the economic shifts that
might occur to the U.S. agricultural sector if these sanctions were
lifted or substantially modified.
Answer. According to a recent USDA analysis, the removal of
unilateral sanctions on six countries--Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea,
Libya and Sudan--could have increased annual shipments of U.S.
agricultural products by 0.9 to 1.5 million tons annually.
While the losses are only a small percentage of total U.S.
agricultural exports, American producers and exporters would like an
opportunity to compete in those markets. For sanctions to be effective,
they must have broad multilateral support. Our ability to deny key
economic benefits unilaterally to any country is sharply limited
because many nations can supply the same kinds of food and agricultural
commodities.
Question. What is the current Administration position on the
subject of international trade sanctions as they relate to agriculture?
Answer. The current Administration position on international trade
sanctions as they relate to agriculture is based on two basic
principles. The first is a humanitarian principle that basics, such as
food and medicine, should not be used as a tool of foreign policy. The
second is an economic principle that our sanctions policy should not
impose undue burdens on our farmers.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
FARM SAFETY NET
Question. You recently made the following statements * * *
``As you all know, many in the farm sector have not shared in the
overall national prosperity * * * That's why the USDA budget includes a
new safety net proposal worth $11.5 billion over the next two years. I
believe that this plan represents a shift in farm policy philosophy,
one that I hope will guide lawmakers as they begin to think about the
2002 farm bill.''--Press Release, February 7, 2000
The farm financial picture would be much different had Congress not
passed emergency aid legislation in 1998 and 1999. Without the added
government payments, net cash income would have likely fallen below $50
billion in 1999, the lowest level since the farm financial crisis of
the mid-1980s. Rising crop surpluses, continued low prices and
declining incomes will contribute to increasing farm financial stress
in 2000, indicating a need for further Federal assistance. However,
added assistance should not be made in the form of emergency
legislation with the bulk of the payments in the form of Agricultural
Market Transition Act (AMTA) payments. That approach, taken the past
two years, is not in the best interests of farmers and taxpayers, as
the assistance is ad hoc and ineffectively targeted.--News Release,
February 2, 2000
I assume you stand by these remarks.
Now, the Chairman of the Ag Committee has likened the emergency aid
legislation in 1998 and 1999 to ``ad hoc counter-cyclical'' farm
support, and thus feels there is no need to change farm legislation. Do
you believe that the banks that finance the planting of crops in Rural
America share the Chairman's view and are happy with cash-flowing farms
based on the whims of whether or not Congress will pass yet a third
emergency aid package?
Answer. No, I believe bankers would be happier knowing with
certainty that their customers will be safeguarded with a counter-
cyclical payment. Producer payments based on ad hoc emergency
assistance are generally unknown at the time loan applications are
reviewed and therefore, add more risk to the banker's portfolio.
Question. Given the counter-cyclical proposal made by the
Administration, would the Administration be willing to support a move
in Congress to change or amend the current farm program, popularly
known as ``Freedom to Farm,'' provided any change in the support
structure was counter-cyclical and targeted in nature?
Answer. Yes, the Administration's safety-net proposal is intended
to be an amendment to the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996 (FAIR Act) and operates during the remaining life of the
FAIR Act. However, the Administration has proposed that its
Supplementary Income Assistance Program (SIAP), the key income support
provision in the safety net package, be provided in addition to
existing FAIR Act income and price support provisions. The
Administration's proposal is counter-cyclical: producers of an eligible
crop would receive a payment sufficient to bring the gross income for
the entire U.S. production of the crop up to 92 percent of the average
gross income of the crop during the preceding five crop years. If
income equals or exceeds 92 percent of the five-year average, then no
payment would be made. The proposal is targeted in two ways: first, the
payments would only go to producers whose crops are suffering an income
shortfall and, second, SIAP payments would be limited. The sum of the
fixed FAIR Act payments plus the SIAP payments could not exceed $30,000
per producer. The Administration would consider alternative
specifications of a supplementary income assistance program provided
that the program is counter-cyclical and targeted.
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDING LEVELS
Question. The reorganization of USDA was to coincide with the
government becoming less involved in the business of farming. The
various agencies serving farmers were straight-lined, as far as staff
personal levels were concerned, and budgets for administration were
scrutinized and kept at bare bone levels.
We now know that ``the government'' did not disengage from
agriculture. In fact, due to the various emergency disaster packages
which were necessary to implement due to the ongoing farm crisis, USDA
is now involved in administrating programs for farmers at record
levels. This has caused a backlog of work in local county Farm Service
Agency offices.
Furthermore, the Risk Management Agency has been reforming crop
insurance to make it more affordable while at the same time, offering a
higher level of coverage. In 1993, one basic crop insurance policy was
available. Now, there are a number of policies available, with more
coming on line each year. However, these new products are being offered
with basically the same number of staff.
Computer technology notwithstanding, the proper administration of
this growing array of programs and services being provided will need to
be addressed. Do you anticipate that the level of funding proposed for
FSA and the RMA in this budget is sufficient to administer these
programs?
Answer. The FSA staffing levels proposed in the budget reflect a
decrease of temporaries due to a current assumption that there will be
no new programs of economic or disaster assistance legislated for
fiscal year 2001. There is also no new FSA staffing proposed for the
proposed Safety Net Initiative. Pending legislation to reform the crop
insurance program may require a significant increase in RMA
administrative resources, including increases in staffing and funding
for computer support. As events unfold for 2001, we will need to work
with OMB and the Congress to address staffing needs when specific
workload impacts can be determined.
RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES
Question. This year's budget proposes to provide mandatory funding
for $15 million in grants annually for Round II Rural Empowerment Zones
and Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC). This approach, however, has been
tried unsuccessfully in the past. Last fall, the conferees of the VA-
HUD Appropriations Conference Committee Struggled to find discretionary
funds to make sure that our commitment to rural EZ/ECs was not
abandoned after it was apparent that the plan to provide grants through
mandatory funding had failed. Please provide for the record a statement
outlining what the Administration will do differently this year to
actually move legislation forward that would grant mandatory funding
for EZ/EC.
Answer. The Administration will be working with the House Committee
on Ways and Means and the Senate Finance Committee on securing the
final eight years of mandatory funding through the Social Services
Block Grants administered by the Department of Health and Human
Services. This also was the funding source for the first round of
Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities. It is our understanding that
a bill containing the funding will be considered by the Oversight
Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee in the very near future.
Question. What assurance can you give the Members of this
subcomittee that we won't have to struggle to find discretionary funds
for this purpose?
Answer. We will make every effort to secure mandatory funding for
the final eight years as was outlined in the Administration's original
proposal.
REGULAR MULTILATERAL FOOD AID PROGRAM
Question. USDA's own Economic Research Service estimates that
global food aid requirements in 2000 are expected to be at least 14
million metric tons, not including emergency needs. However, the
Administration's request for global food aid (Public Law 480 Title II)
for fiscal year 2001 is less than that estimated to be distributed in
the current year. Why in the face of growing global food aid needs has
the Administration requested a smaller allocation for Title II in
fiscal year 2001 ($837,000,000) than it estimates spending in the
current year ($967,000,000)?
Answer. The Public Law 480 Title II program level for 2000 is
higher than it has been in recent years due to special circumstances.
An unusually large amount of funds--$123 million--carried over from
1999 to 2000, and these have been made available for programming this
year.
The President's budget requests $837 million for Title II in 2001,
which is an increase of $37 million above the level of funding
appropriated for 2000. We believe the funding requested should be
adequate to help meet global food needs in 2001. This level of Title II
programming will, of course, be supplemented by food aid commodities
made available through other programs and authorities.
SURPLUS COMMODITY PROGRAM
Question. Last year, USDA purchased more than eight million metric
tons of wheat and other grains from hurting U.S. farmers and donated it
to needy countries under CCC authority. Last October, USDA announced
that only three million tons of surplus commodities would be purchased
in the current fiscal year. Thus far, however, only a little over
800,000 tons has been purchased by USDA--more than a third of the way
through the current fiscal year. At a time when U.S. agricultural
production and carryover stocks are at record high levels, and farm-
gate prices are at historic lows, why hasn't USDA used its authority
under the CCC Charter Act and section 416(b) to help offset the crisis
in farm country by purchasing surplus commodities for countries in
need?
Answer. USDA is using its authorities to help improve our export
performance and support farm prices and income. In the case of foreign
food assistance, this year, we expect to provide nearly 4 million tons
of commodity donations to food deficit countries under the authority of
section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949. When coupled with
assistance we will be providing under other USDA program authorities,
total USDA food aid programming should reach nearly 6 million tons.
This amount will be supplemented by donations made under the Public Law
480 Title II program, which is administered by AID and, thus, total
U.S. food assistance could total as much as 9 million metric tons this
year.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard L. Durbin
ANTITRUST IN THE LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY
Question. The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) is budgeted at
$32.1 million and 350 staff years in 2000; to $36 million and 370 staff
years in 2001, increases of 12 and 6 percent respectively. Will these
additional resources include a focus on antitrust in the livestock
industry?
Answer. The proposed budget for fiscal year 2001 reflects OGC's
heightened emphasis on concentration issues, food safety, natural
resources and civil rights. As part of its emphasis on concentration
issues, OGC will provide substantial legal services to the Grain
Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration in the enforcement of
Packers and Stockyards Act provisions that support fair trade practices
and competition in the livestock industry.
Question. How may lawyers will work on antitrust and
competitiveness issues in the livestock industry?
Answer. Because of budget constraints in fiscal 2000, OGC has been
unable to fill attorney positions vacated by attrition, Currently,
there are 3.5 FTEs in attorney positions that work on competitiveness
issues in the livestock industry. If OGC receives its requested
appropriation for fiscal 2001, we would expect to add attorney
positions such that there would be at least 5 FTEs working on
concentration and competitiveness issues in the livestock industry.
LIVESTOCK PILOT PROGRAM
Question. Will Illinois counties be included in any pilot programs
in risk management to be instituted for livestock producers?
Answer. When authorized, RMA will follow a very deliberate process
to determine the scope and area of availability of pilot programs that
are initiated. Factors involved in that process include producer
interest, economic value for the area (State and counties), data
availability, and resource availability and the feasibility of the
pilot plan of insurance to meet the specific needs of the producers in
an area. Although Illinois counties may be included in such a pilot
program, it is impossible to determine which counties will be included
in a pilot at this time.
EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Question. EEP funding for fiscal year 2001 in your budget is set at
$478 million. Less than $3 million has been used under EEP annually
since 1997. EEP programming is currently limited because of world
supply and demand conditions. Given this situation, shouldn't we
consider a legislative change so that we can use these resources for
other activities, including food aid and market development?
Answer. Yes, the Department shares your view. In conjunction with
the budget, the Administration again this year will submit legislation
to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to reallocate unobligated EEP
funds to support other export program activities, such as market
development and food assistance. We understand that legislation similar
to the Administration's proposal has already been introduced in the
Senate.
U.S. ACTION PLAN ON FOOD SECURITY
Question. As you know, I included language in last year's
appropriations bill calling upon the Administration to specifically
request funding in fiscal year 2001 to implement the U.S. Action Plan
on Food Security. What we see instead is a 17 percent drop in Public
Law 480 funding (from $1.23 billion to $1.02 billion), and no specific
program funding for the Action Plan. Can you explain the
Administration's lack of commitment to this important issue?
Answer. USDA is committed to promoting both global and domestic
food security. International food aid is one part of our work to
implement the U.S. Action Plan on Food Security. The decrease in the
proposed 2001 Public Law 480 program level occurs because of large
carryover funding balances in the Public Law 480 programs which carried
over from 1999 into 2000. Public Law 480 Title I carryover funds were
relatively large because the large scale of section 416(b) foreign
donations in 1999 reduced the demand for Title I assistance. Also, a
portion of the emergency Public Law 480 Title II funds provided in 1999
were carried over to 2000.
USDA is working closely with other agencies to develop a detailed
implementation plan to determine how we can best contribute to meeting
our goal of halving malnutrition on a global basis by 2015. We hope to
have a unified plan for the U.S. Government by late spring. This will
provide a guide for future budget requests to implement the action
plan.
The Economic Research Service (ERS) has produced an important study
of why countries are at risk for food insecurity and examines ways we
can help. ERS classified its global research, statistics and outreach
as a high priority area and has budgeted for research collaboration
with appropriate institutions in developing countries on issues
critical to both the U.S. and foreign governments to implement the
Action Plan on Food Security. Emphasis will be placed on developing
better science, more efficient technology transfer mechanisms, better
information for market and policy decisions, and creating a safer and
more secure world food supply.
SECTION 416(B) DONATIONS
Question. Similar to the decline in Public Law 480 funding, section
416(b) seems to be in decline. Yet, the most recent Food Security
Assessment indicates an increase in the current status quo food gap
over the previous year's report--from almost 11 million tons to 12.7
million tons. How can we be giving less to programs like the World Food
Program when the need is greater than ever?
Answer. We are continuing to make available large quantities of
commodities to the World Food Program (WFP) during fiscal year 2000. At
present, we estimate we will program a total of four million tons under
section 416(b) authority this year, of which approximately one million
tons will be through the WFP. This is in addition to the donations
provided to WFP under the Public Law 480 Title II program.
Question. With regard to section 416(b), we are four months into
fiscal year 2000 and I'm concerned that a section 416(b) soybean
program has not been initiated and very little wheat has been produced
for donations. For soybeans, I understand that private voluntary
organizations, such as CARE, Catholic Relief Services, and Africare,
developed section 416(b) proposals with the assistance of U.S. soybean
producers. In sub-Saharan Africa, where 70 percent of the population
lives in poverty, these programs would improve HIV/AIDS prevention,
construct community-managed irrigation, provide literacy training, and
introduce improved agricultural practices. Why have the fiscal year
2000 section 416(b) soybean and wheat programs been delayed?
Answer. Concerns regarding the overall U.S. budget situation this
year required some time to assess. The final calculations of the non-
Social Security budget surplus were not complete until mid-January.
This was a key piece of information for the Administration as it
considered additional budget allocations, including those to the
agriculture sector. With the release of the President's budget on
February 7, the Administration was able to move ahead with an
announcement on section 416(b) programming.
While assessing the overall budget situation, USDA staff compiled
production and trade data on a number of countries experiencing food
import needs, but lacking large financial resources. Developing such
information takes some time both for USDA to compile and for other
agencies to review. All of this activity was on-going to provide
sufficient information to make country/commodity decisions once the
over-all budget situation was clear.
Question. When can we expect to see them initiated?
Answer. USDA intends to program close to 4 million metric tons of
commodities to nearly 50 countries in 2000. We are actively working
with foreign governments and private voluntary organizations. A number
of agreements have already been signed, including agreements for
Bosnia, Ethiopia, Jordan, Indonesia, and the World Food Program.
FOOD AID TO AFRICA
Question. I traveled to Africa in January and had an opportunity to
see U.S. food aid programs in action. I was impressed and heartened by
direct feeding programs as well as programs that sell U.S. food
products at low cost to finance development projects. But I was
overwhelmed by the impact of AIDS on Africa--particularly by the
millions of children being left orphaned by the epidemic and the
devastating impact on African countries' economies. I believe U.S. food
aid could be used to target communities heavily affected by AIDS. I
introduced a bill to target $50 million of U.S. food aid for
nutritional assistance for people living with AIDS, for families and
children affected by AIDS, and for development projects for communities
heavily impacted by AIDS. I would like to get your view on the
potential for U.S. food aid being used to help those children,
families, and communities affected by AIDS in Africa and elsewhere in
the world.
Answer. In addition to food donated through the World Food Program
to needy people in Africa, USDA works with private voluntary
organizations (PVOs) to target African and other countries with
humanitarian and development programs. USDA anticipates working closely
with PVOs to target programs that can be of assistance to AIDS-affected
communities. We will review proposals for the most affected countries
and seek to take advantage of programming opportunities.
FACILITY MODERNIZATION
Question. Six USDA/ARS facilities were included in the budget. The
Peoria Lab was not. Although it was not specifically listed, a need
still exists for modernization efforts. What is the Department/Agency
doing to help expedite the modernization of the Peoria ARS Lab?
Answer. Modernization has been ongoing at the Peoria Lab since
1993. The scope of the modernization includes renovation of the North
Wing (Pilot Plant), Chemical Wing, South Wing (Biological Wing),
Administration Wing, and upgrade site utilities and infrastructure
improvements.
The site utilities and infrastructure improvements are complete.
The North Wing Modernization is being accomplished in three phases.
Design for all phases is complete. Construction of the first phase was
completed in fiscal year 1999. Construction of the second phase is
scheduled to be completed in the third quarter of fiscal year 2000. The
last phase of construction will be awarded late in the third quarter or
early in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2000 and is expected to be
completed in the second quarter of fiscal year 2002.
The Chemical Wing modernization will also be accomplished in three
phases. Design of all phases will be awarded in March 2000 and is
expected to be completed in fiscal year 2001.
Question. Will the Agency undertake rehabilitation work in fiscal
year 2001?
Answer. Modernization funds are not being requested in fiscal year
2001 for the National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research
(NCAUR) due to more critical funding requirements in other ARS
buildings and facilities projects and since completion of the design
project for the Chemical Wing modernization is not expected until the
latter part of fiscal year 2001.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
WATER AND WASTEWATER GRANTS PROGRAM
Question. How do you justify a reduction in the water and
wastewater grants program when basic needs like those in West Virginia
will go unmet?
Answer. It is recognized that the amount included in the fiscal
year 2001 budget for Water and Waste Disposal grants is slightly lower
than the current fiscal year 2000 estimate. However, there are
competing needs for funding, and additional funding for Water and Waste
Disposal programs would likely come at the expense of other programs.
West Virginia's initial allocation of Water and Waste Disposal
grants has averaged about $8.5 million the past few years. Since the
need for this assistance is greater in West Virginia, additional
funding has also been provided from the national reserve. In fiscal
year 1998, actual obligations totaled $12.9 million, and in fiscal year
1999, obligations totaled $14.3 million, increases on 61 percent and 55
percent respectively over the initial allocation. In addition, for
Water and Waste Disposal loans, the state allocation for West Virginia
has averaged $13 million, and actual obligations have averaged about
$19.5 million in each of the last two years.
NEW SPENDING FOR RURAL AMERICA
Question. Don't you think that $11.5 billion in new spending for
rural America should be distributed in a way that benefits all of rural
America.
Answer. I do think the $11.5 billion in funding for Rural
Development should be distributed in a manner that provides benefits to
all residents of rural America. The Rural Development agencies allocate
most of the funds based on each state's proportion of rural population,
rural poverty, and other factors that differ somewhat depending on the
individual program and its purpose. The intent being to ensure equal
treatment, but to also ensure that the funds are used in a manner that
assists those most in need.
PROGRESS ON WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
Question. Would you provide me information about the progress of
developing water and wastewater systems in West Virginia?
Answer. West Virginia has a very active Water and Waste Disposal
program. Since October 1, 1996, the State has obligated 68 loans for
over $56 million and 89 grants for $56 million. The State's initial
allocation levels for loans and grants have totaled a little over $20
million; the additional amounts have come from National Office
reserves. In spite of these expenditures, however, there are still
significant needs.
Question. To what extent is West Virginia catching up to other
states in meeting these basic needs and how much of a need still
exists?
Answer. There are still significant unmet needs in West Virginia.
The State currently has applications for 35 loans and 18 grants
totaling over $77 million, which is well over three times its
allocation level from recent years. Due to the many variables involved,
RUS does not monitor States' progress against that of other States.
While RUS has not compiled comprehensive listings of water and
wastewater needs, the WV Infrastructure and Jobs Development Council
conducted an assessment that indicated needs totaling over $2.7 billion
in West Virginia. Our State staff advises that the vast majority of the
entities and projects would be eligible for RUS assistance.
EMERGENCY LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE AND PASTURE LAND REVEGETATION
Question. I want to thank Secretary Glickman for the attention that
he has given to reducing the impact of the drought of 1999 on West
Virginia farmers. Last August, as we stood together under a cloudless
sky in the crispy brown cornfields of West Virginia, and Secretary
Glickman declared all fifty-five West Virginia counties disaster areas,
thereby allowing special circumstance USDA assistance to be provided to
farmers in my state. West Virginia farmers, and I, are grateful for his
ongoing attention to the needs of small family farmers in smaller
agriculture states. Cooperative efforts between the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and the West Virginia Department of Agriculture have helped
speed available assistance to distressed farmers. However, I am
concerned about delays in distributing emergency funds to provide
assistance to livestock producers for losses due to drought or other
natural disasters, and for the cost of restoring pasture lands damaged
by the drought. I am concerned that the difficulties in providing this
assistance may be a direct result of a shortage in appropriated funding
for these programs. Could the Secretary explain what is causing delays
in administering emergency assistance programs, specifically the
livestock assistance program and the pasture land revegetation program?
Answer. Sign-up for the Livestock Assistance Program began November
1, 1999, a few weeks after the fiscal year 2000 Appropriation bill was
signed by the President. Sign-up ended in mid-February, which allowed
time for producers to enroll in the program and our county offices to
complete the application process. We expect to process and issue
payments soon, possible in March.
The Pasture Recovery Program was created by the Administration in
response to the extreme drought that plagued much of the eastern half
of the United States. It took time to develop because the program is
new. We expect to begin sign-up shortly.
Question. How can Congress be of assistance in these matters?
Answer. Short-term ad hoc programs cause us to react to
emergencies, and by their very nature, these programs often come too
late and offer too little. I would like to work with the Congress to
establish long-term solutions that would reduce or eliminate the need
for ad hoc programs. The President's budget purposes an improved
approach to providing assistance to farmers in times of distress
including supplementary countercyclical income assistance targeted to
producers faced with reduced revenues, improved risk management
programs, and new programs combining income and environmental benefits.
While some of our initiatives can be done administratively, most will
require legislation. Producers and their bankers will be better served
if we can get these programs in place early so they can rely on them in
their planning and make better informed farming decisions.
MILK MARKETING ORDERS
Question. How has the implementation of the Option 1A for pricing
fluid milk impacted West Virginia dairy farmers, and dairy farmers in
other regions of America?
Answer. To date, the implementation of Federal milk order reform
has benefitted all West Virginia producers delivering to Federal milk
markets. It is important to recognize that the Federal milk order
program is not a price support program, and that the changes made as a
result of consolidation and reform were to improve the marketing of
milk. I have asked the Agricultural Marketing Service to provide more
information on the impact of consolidation and reform on West Virginia.
[The information follows:]
The most recent information indicates that about 96 percent of West
Virginia's Grade A milk is marketed under four of the newly
consolidated Federal milk marketing orders--Northeast, Appalachian,
Mideast, and Southeast. Prior to consolidation the Federal order
markets shipped to were: Middle Atlantic, Carolina, Louisville-
Lexington-Evansville, Ohio Valley, Eastern Ohio-Western Pennsylvania,
and Southeast. We believe the rest of West Virginia milk was marketed
in areas of Virginia or Pennsylvania where milk marketing is regulated
by State orders.
The implementation of Option 1A Class I differentials is only a
small part of the overall impact of Federal milk order reform on farm
milk prices. Changes in Class I differentials in the markets where West
Virginia farmers deliver milk ranged from -$0.09 to +$0.09 per
hundredweight. The effect of these changes in Class I differentials on
producer blend prices are projected to range from -$0.04 to +$0.07 per
hundredweight.
The consolidation of markets also had some impact on producer blend
prices depending upon whether consolidation of the orders increased or
decreased the proportion of milk used in Class I products. For the
markets served by West Virginia dairy farmers, Class I utilization
changed only slightly, ranging from up 0.1 percent to down 2.7
percentage points. The impacts of market consolidation on West Virginia
producer blend prices range from almost nothing to about -$0.05 per
hundredweight.
The most important factor affecting producer milk prices was the
implementation of a Class I mover based on the higher value of the
Class III or Class IV price formulas. The adoption of the new Class I
price mover increased the Class I price for January 2000 by $1.11 per
hundredweight, and for February 2000 by $1.08 compared to what it would
have been under the old system. The resulting higher Class I prices
during these two months increased producer blend prices about $0.55 to
$0.80 per hundredweight, depending on point of delivery. Although we
expect these price impacts from the new Class I price mover to moderate
later in the year as milk supplies and demand come more into balance,
they have been beneficial to dairy farmers during this period of low
farm milk prices.
In conjunction with the milk order consolidation and reform
process, USDA analyzed the impacts of a number of proposals and
published the analyses in a Final Regulatory Impact Analysis. The
following table summarizes the expected average impacts on all-milk
prices to dairy farmers delivering to Federal order markets over the
six-year analytical period. The all-milk price is a weighted average
price determined by multiplying the change in the minimum price for
milk in each class (Class I, II, III, and IV) by the amount of milk
used in each class. The average all-milk price for all Federal order
markets was forecast to be $.03 per hundredweight higher under Federal
order reform and Option 1A Class I location differentials. In 17 former
Federal order markets, the all-milk price was projected to decline,
while in 15 former markets, the all-milk price was projected to
increase.
CHANGE FROM BASELINE IN ALL-MILK PRICES
[Dollars/cwt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA Baseline Modified 1A
FMMO Region 6-Year Average Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeast:
New England......................... $15.54 $.05
NY-NJ............................... 15.00 .34
Middle Atlantic..................... 15.53 -.13
Appalachian:
Carolina............................ 17.08 .16
Tennessee Valley.................... 16.78 .09
Louis-Lex-Evansville................ 16.14 -.05
Southeast............................... 16.57 .07
Florida:
Upper Florida....................... 19.06 -.18
Tampa Bay........................... 18.88 .31
SE Florida.......................... 19.94 ..............
Mid East:
MI. Upper Pen....................... 15.91 -.03
So. Michigan........................ 15.01 .13
E. OH.-W. PA........................ 15.32 .17
Ohio Valley......................... 15.74 .03
Indiana............................. 16.04 -.05
Upper Midwest:
Chicago Regional.................... 14.44 .02
Upper Midwest....................... 14.27 -.03
Central:
Iowa................................ 14.70 .17
NB.-W. Iowa......................... 15.04 -.02
E. So. Dakota....................... 15.31 -.19
Central Illinois.................... 16.49 -.57
So. Ill-E. Missouri................. 15.71 -.20
S.W. Plains......................... 15.39 .13
E. Colorado......................... 14.84 .32
W. Colorado......................... 15.39 -.66
Greater Kansas City................. 16.45 -.66
Southwest:
Texas............................... 15.66 N.08
NM-W. Texas......................... 14.47 .22
Western:
S.W.Idaho-E. OR..................... 13.80 .19
Great Basin......................... 14.51 -.15
AZ-Las Vegas............................ 14.70 -.04
Pacific N.W............................. 14.43 .01
All Fed. Orders......................... 15.23 .03
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How has the implementation of Option 1A impacted the
price of milk for consumers?
Answer. Implementation of the Option 1A is expected to have a minor
impact on the price of milk for consumers. I have asked the
Agricultural Marketing Service to provide additional information for
the record.
[The information follows:]
A $0.12 increase in the Class I price translates into about a $0.01
increase in a gallon of milk. Option 1A increased the average Class I
price differential for all markets about $0.04 per hundredweight or
less than $0.01 per gallon. The change in the Class I mover raised
Class I prices on average about $1.10 per hundredweight for the first
two months of 2000. Therefore, the average price of a gallon of milk in
January and February in all Federal order markets may have been between
$0.09 to $0.10 per gallon higher than it would have been under the old
system. This is the short-term impact of Federal order reform. USDA's
Regulatory Impact Analysis indicates that Federal milk order reform
with Option 1A Class I differentials would increase the retail price of
a gallon of milk, on average, across all markets about $0.01 for the
period 2000 through 2005. For the part of West Virginia that is in the
Mideast market, no real change is expected on average for the
analytical period.
Question. What can we do to improve the income of dairy farmers?
Answer. There are a number of things that can be done to improve
dairy farm income, and almost as important, to reduce the risk of
volatile farm milk prices to dairy farmers. I have asked the
Agricultural Marketing Service to provide more information on the
actions taken by USDA to improve the income of dairy farmers.
[The information follows:]
A 2-year extension of the dairy price support program that is due
to expire on December 31, 2000 would help protect farm income. The
dairy price support program has been a critical safety net during the
past several years, purchasing 121 million pounds of nonfat dry milk in
fiscal year 1998, 172 million pounds in fiscal year 1999, and 171
million pounds so far this fiscal year. Absent this program, farm milk
prices would be even more depressed. The President's budget request for
2001 proposes extension of the price support program through 2002, at
which time the current farm bill expires.
USDA has committed to use the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP)
to the maximum extent allowed by international agreements. The
assistance that is provided by DEIP expands the market for U.S. dairy
products and helps build future markets abroad for dairy products.
For several years, USDA has been using the Dairy Options Pilot
Program to educate and assist dairy farmers in managing risk through
use of the futures and options market. The second phase of the program
was announced on March 7, 2000, and will provide training in the use of
futures and options and subsidize the cost of options contracts to
dairy farmers in 61 counties in 32 States.
On March 1, 2000, USDA announced a proposed Dairy Forward
Contracting Program as authorized by the Agricultural Appropriations
Act of 2000. This program will give proprietary handlers who market
milk under Federal milk orders more flexibility in offering forward
price contracts to dairy producers. Forward price contracts provide
another tool for producers to reduce price risk. Cooperatives already
offer forward contracts to their members' producers. USDA, in designing
this pilot program, has created certain safeguards for dairy farmers as
they learn to use this new method of pricing. Implementation of the
program is tentatively scheduled for May 1, 2000.
On the cost side, USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education and
Extension Service in conjunction with the land grant university system
continues to provide educational materials to dairy farmers. Though
expanded internet services, dairy farmers now have access to the the
latest information on production methods, new technology, and current
dairy and feed market information that can be used to increase
efficiency. Also, information is available on the Sustainable
Agriculture Research and Educational Agriculture program, organic
farming and other value-added production and marketing information that
enables farmers to receive more of the consumer's dollar.
Milk prices are currently at levels unseen in more than two
decades. The recent collapse in milk prices will result in severe
economic hardship for the Nation's dairy producers. To assist dairy
producers through this economic emergency, the Administration is
working with Congress to develop an emergency aid package for
agriculture that will include assistance to dairy producers.
AQUACULTURE
Question. Could you please provide a status report regarding
construction of the National Center for Cool and Cold Water
Aquaculture, including milestones that will occur during construction
of the center and timetables for the completion and maintenance of this
project?
Answer. The National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture is
about 35 percent complete. Site grading and subgrade piping and
electorial work are 95 percent complete. Structural steel and roof
decking for the Lab/Office building and the Tank/Aquaria building is
scheduled to be completed by May 2000. The final inspection of the main
building is scheduled to start August 2000. The scheduled completion
date for all work is September 1, 2000.
AQUACULTURE
Question. What is the USDA's strategic plan for a national policy
to encourage development of, promote, and support U.S. aquaculture as
required by the National Aquaculture Act of 1980?
Answer. The USDA's strategic plan for a national policy to
encourage development of, promote, and support U.S. aquaculture is
being updated and the working draft entitled, ``National Aquaculture
Development Plan of 2000'' is near completion.
Question. What efforts are underway to coordinate American
aquaculture efforts on a national level?
Answer. As mandated by the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 and
amendments, the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA) coordinates
Federal research, technology transfer, and assistance programs in
aquaculture, reporting to Congress and the Executive Office of Science
and Technology Policy through the cabinet level National Science and
Technology Council (NSTC), chaired by the President.
The JSA has interacted with the aquaculture industry and other
customers, stakeholders, and partners to assure federal programs meet
the needs of the industry and the American public. ARS participates in
JSA sponsored workshops as well as holding program planning workshops
to obtain stakeholder input on ARS aquaculture research program. The
JSA meets formally four times a year to bring membership from 12 plus
agencies together; ARS is a regulate participant. ARS national program
leaders and ARS scientists are regular participants in planning
meetings with the five Regional Aquaculture Centers administrated by
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)
and frequently collaborate on research projects.
ARS has developed a plan Aquaculture Research for the future: Five
Year Research Plan in response to an outcome of a stakeholder meeting.
Stakeholders identified under investment in aquaculture research by ARS
as a major issue. In response to that criticism, ARS is developing
within a broad framework specifically how the Agency would invest
future appropriations for aquaculture research.
Program managers in ARS and CEREES are responsible for assurance
for quality and relevancy of national aquaculture research.
Question. What role will the National Center for Cool and Cold
Water Aquaculture play in the strategic plans?
Answer. ARS scientists, especially Research Leaders, participate in
workshops, both intramurally and extramurally to establish relevancy of
ARS aquaculture research programs and often are requested to
participate in similar activities held by others at the national level.
The staff at the National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture
will participate in national strategic planning meetings sponsored by
ARS. Another very important role for the National Center for Cool and
Cold Water Aquaculture is to conduct the research to solve the
aquaculture industries highest priority problems. This research will
involve intramural and collaborative extramural and intramural
projects.
POULTRY GROWERS
Question. Contract poultry growers face the difficult task of
disposing of excess poultry litter. West Virginia State College and the
West Virginia Department of Agriculture are working to explore
technology to control the adverse impact of excess poultry litter and,
at the same time, produce a value-added product from the litter. A
$500,000 appropriation that I added for waste utilization through the
West Virginia Department of Agriculture's Poultry Waste Energy Recovery
(POWER) project was reduced by fifteen percent as a result of across-
the-board rescissions. Excess poultry litter is a serious problem that
pollutes water supplies and causes health problems. What USDA efforts
seek to improve disposal methods of excess poultry litter?
Answer. An important conceptual consideration regarding poultry
litter management is that we attempt to have industry personnel and
others understand the need to utilize a valuable source of nutrients,
rather than to dispose of a waste. One problem is excess nutrient
availability from all sources, which include commercial fertilizer and
bio-solids, as well as urban run-off. When poultry litter/manure is
seen as having a comparative value, utilization options should
increase.
USDA has a number of programs that attempt to assist the poultry
industry in dealing with environmental issues. For example, CSREES
cooperates in various ways with the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) National Agricultural Compliance Assistance Center, such as in
grant coordination. CSREES is managing competitive grants for a
National Curriculum Development for Environmental Protection project,
and the USDA/EPA National Agricultural Compliance Assistance Program.
CSREES has recently initiated the Waste Management National
Initiative Team. CSREES has for many years provided competitive and
other grants to states through the Water Quality National Initiative
Team, some of the results of which are summarized in the document
entitled, National Extension Targeted Water Quality Program, 1992-
1995''.
The CSREES National Research Initiative (NRI) can support research
on poultry litter utilization methods through competitively-awarded
grants. In the past, the NRI has funded poultry research, which
included a broiler litter project.
CSREES, Land Grant University, other agency personnel, and private
groups recently held the Alliance for Environmental Stewardship: A
Comprehensive Approach workshop in St. Louis, Missouri. The
proceedings, which will be available by April, prioritized
recommendations as to what is needed to develop a comprehensive
approach to environmental protection, and how all parties can fulfill
their responsibility to protect the environment.
POULTRY GROWERS
Question. What opportunities are available to West Virginia poultry
growers who wish to employ better poultry litter management techniques?
Answer. Independent poultry growers should first contact their
county Extension agent for assistance with concerns about poultry
litter management. Note that litter refers to the manure and wood
shavings or other absorbent material used in the production of poultry,
but for this response the term will include caged layer manure. Agents
will provide written and technical assistance to the farmer. If the
problem is beyond the expertise of the agent, assistance will be
requested from state specialists at West Virginia University.
CSREES supports the National Poultry Waste Management Symposium.
This symposium is a biennial event started in 1988, focuses on cutting
edge technologies and concepts, and includes commercial exhibits and
poster sessions that cover various hot topics. Grower participation is
encouraged through publicity and through a reduced registration fee.
The next symposium is scheduled for October 2000.
The West Virginia Poultry Association holds an annual Convention
and Festival during which educational sessions are held, and
participate in other areas of assistance throughout the year and
cooperate in various educational events. Independent producers and
growers are encouraged to attend meetings such as the National Poultry
Waste Management Symposium.
Future opportunities for the West Virginia industry relate to
projects on which the industry is working at this time, such as the
pelleting of poultry litter, and generation of electricity from litter.
CONSERVATION AND WATER
Question. The Natural Resources Conservation Service in West
Virginia, under the leadership of Bill Hartman and Paul Dunn, continues
its important work to implement watershed and conservation programs in
West Virginia that make a positive impact on the state's rural
communities. Funding for Small Watershed Projects in West Virginia was
reduced by fifteen percent. This will delay treatment of mine drainage
sites, and slow the work of the Potomac Headwaters Land Treatment
Watershed Project. Unfortunately, delays to these programs will also
mean a delay of the day when all West Virginians have reliable access
to healthy drinking water. What action is the USDA taking to improve
conservation and water services in rural America? How can West
Virginians participate and benefit from these programs?
Answer. One option for rural communities and watershed sponsors in
West Virginia would be to include water supply source development in
any new Public Law 566 or Public Law 534 watershed projects that are
currently being planned. Although these projects have been historically
developed for upland land treatment, flood prevention, water quality,
or recreation purposes, local sponsors can include water supply as a
project purpose. By doing so, the cost for developing a quality water
supply can be significantly reduced. Currently NRCS has statutory
authority under Public Law 566/534 to provide a 50 percent cost-share
for such source water development. However, priorities for funding
watershed projects in the last ten years has been focused on soil
erosion control, land treatment, water quality and environmental
benefits.
Also, the President's Budget provides $1.6 billion for the Rural
Utilities Service's water and waste loans and grants programs.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Cochran. The hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., Thursday, February 10, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:03 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Thad Cochran (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Cochran, Gorton, Kohl, Dorgan, and
Durbin.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF KEITH COLLINS, CHIEF ECONOMIST
Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services
STATEMENT OF AUGUST SCHUMACHER, JR., UNDER SECRETARY
Farm Service Agency
STATEMENT OF KEITH KELLY, ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY PARKS SHACKELFORD, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY J. GALVIN, ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY RICHARD G. FRITZ, GENERAL SALES MANAGER
Risk Management Agency
STATEMENT OF KENNETH D. ACKERMAN, ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY DENNIS KAPLAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR BUDGET, LEGISLATIVE
AND REGULATORY SYSTEMS, OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM
ANALYSIS
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. The subcommittee will please come to
order. Today we are convening a hearing of our Subcommittee on
Agriculture Appropriations to review the outlook for production
agriculture, and the budget request for farm programs. We are
pleased to have as our panel today Mr. Gus Schumacher, Jr.,
Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Mr. Keith Collins, Chief
Economist of the Department of Agriculture, and Dennis Kaplan
of the Budget Office of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
We are coming off 2 years where Congress and the
Administration have agreed to supplement the assistance that is
provided directly to producers of agriculture commodities. This
assistance has taken place because of disasters that have
occurred on the farms and ranches in the United States by
reason of weather, other related problems, and economic stress
that has beset agricultural producers due to changes in
economic growth and health in other parts of the world, and
among the customers who buy what is produced on the farms and
ranches in the United States.
Statistics have indicated that this difficulty in
production agriculture is not yet over. As a matter of fact,
the President's budget request includes increases of some $10
to $11 billion that would be made because of changes that are
recommended in farm program law and conservation programs and
other Agriculture Department activities because of changes that
are recommended by the President in the laws, not to produce
any more discretionary funding from this committee,
necessarily, but rather to mandate additional spending by
changing the law.
The difficulty with that is that we are under a 5-year farm
bill. It has not yet expired. It has 2 more years to go. It is
not likely that Congress is going to, in an election year, be
able to come in and revamp the agriculture programs as the
Administration is suggesting, so I hope this panel will help us
look at alternatives to changing the law and the program law
and looking at the discretionary funding that we might consider
if we should consider any such supplementary payments as we did
during the last 2 years, or what other forms of relief we might
consider to help deal with this problem.
I understand that some of the commodity prices may be
increased, or the outlook for increases in prices over the next
couple of years, but I am also told that this year we could
have just as serious a problem in some commodity areas as we
have had since 1993.
I also have heard that we may see some substantial
increases in production in foreign countries that could have an
effect on the overall world supply of commodities. For example,
in Brazil, cotton production is expected to be much higher.
What impact is that going to have on the U.S. cotton producer?
These are things we will look at today, and we appreciate very
much your being here and helping us work our way through this
dilemma and figuring out what we can do as a committee in
charge of setting the spending and funding levels for the
Department of Agriculture to solve the problems that are faced
by the producers of U.S. agriculture commodities.
We have copies of your statements, and we will make those a
part of the record in full. We encourage you to make whatever
summary comments you think would be helpful to the committee.
Mr. Collins.
STATEMENT OF KEITH COLLINS
Mr. Collins. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you for
inviting me, and I am going to take just a few minutes to
provide some context for this discussion today. I will try to
answer at least a couple of questions about the state of the
farm economy that you just raised in your comments.
As you look back over the last couple of years, as you and
everyone know we have had very weak commodity markets in the
United States, but we have not seen an erosion or a
deterioration in the U.S. farm financial condition to the
extent that might be expected, and there are a lot of reasons
for that, and let me mention four.
One, of course, is the large built-in payments of the farm
bill and the supplementary payments that have been enacted in
the last 2 years.
A second reason is, I think farmers have made lots of
prudent choices not to take on more debt over the last 2 years.
A third reason is that we have an overall farm balance
sheet that has not broken down during the last 2 years, and a
fourth reason is, we have had a strong off-farm economy which
has helped farmers have better off-farm job opportunities and
higher off-farm incomes.
The result of all of that is that when we look at
nonperforming loans at agricultural banks, and we have data as
of October 1999, we see that nonperforming loans have hardly
increased. They are not much different than they were in the
early 1990's, for example. Nevertheless, certain farms, certain
regions, certain commodities around the country will have more
financial pressures than others.
I think in all likelihood, as we look out to the rest of
this year, that we are going to face very weak markets for all
of our major commodities in the year 2000, particularly for
crops and for dairy. Despite an improving world economy, our
exports are still stagnant. They are moving sideways. We expect
the global economy to grow a little over 3 percent this year.
That would be the highest rate since 1996, and that is
certainly good news. However, import recovery in a number of
our major markets is very slow.
We can look at Japan. We can look at Europe. As well as
that, we have fierce competition, as you mentioned, from a
number of competitors such as Argentina and Brazil, in addition
to China and even the European Union as well.
For 2000, we are currently projecting agricultural exports
at $49\1/2\ billion. That is up only slightly from last year's
$49 billion. When we add in USDA's recently announced
humanitarian assistance package, that will add to that
forecast.
I want to mention a few forecasts of average farm prices to
again put this situation in a historical context and illustrate
the farm price problem that producers face. Soybean prices
during this marketing year are expected to be the lowest since
1972-1973. Cotton prices, so far since August, have been the
lowest since 1974-1975. Corn and wheat prices this year we
think will be the lowest since 1986-1987. Milk prices this year
will be the lowest since 1990-1991, and rice prices the lowest
since 1992-1993.
Those are all price forecasts for the 1999-2000 year, so
many farmers could see an escalation of financial stress in the
year 2000 as the farm economy, I think, is poised to take a
fairly sharp drop in farm income. Farm cash receipts this year
are going to go down another $2 billion. That will make them
about $18 billion below the record of 1997.
In addition to that, without new legislation, Government
payments would go down $5\1/2\ billion in the year 2000. So
with lower receipts from the market and lower Government
payments, we have a forecast of net cash farm income in 2000 of
$49.7 billion, which would be a 16 percent, roughly $9 billion,
drop. That would be the lowest net cash farm income since 1986.
Many farmers are also going to face higher production costs
this year, and I would mention interest rates and fuel prices
are also squeezing that income level down. During the fourth
quarter of 1999, farm interest rates averaged 35 to 45 basis
points higher than the fourth quarter of the year earlier. In
addition to that, if you look at West Texas intermediate crude
oil prices during 1999 they averaged $19.24 a barrel. At the
end of last week they hit a 9-year high of almost $31 a barrel,
and farmers are not going to be able to avoid those higher fuel
costs, particularly as we move now into the peak diesel fuel
period of use from February through May.
Farm real estate values have maintained farm balance sheets
up to this point. However, with rising interest rates, and if
we get this drop in income that we are projecting, we expect
little to no growth in farm land values over the next couple of
years.
I would like to conclude with just a couple of very brief
comments about the state of commodity markets. Last week, the
Department of Agriculture held its annual Agricultural Outlook
Forum, and we had about 1,300 people, an all-time record high
in attendance, and I think you could hear much concern at that
conference about the weakness in commodity markets. If I could
summarize the concerns in two words I would say they are
weather and competition, and wheat is a good example of that.
If you look at wheat acreage, it is going to be down again
in the year 2000. We have had very dry weather in the plains
States, and we think that the lower acreage will reduce U.S.
production, but our stocks on June 1 are going to be the
highest level since 1988. The Australians in all likelihood
will have a record crop this spring. The European Union will
likely have a record crop in the fall. As a result of that, any
wheat price advances are going to be limited.
For corn, we have had record high total use in 1999. Next
year, we expect higher production, with use about the same.
That would result in little to no change from the $1.90-a-
bushel price that we see this year, and China's role as a corn
exporter is going to be a very important factor in the price
outlook.
I would say that the soybean perspective is a little
different than that for grains. Soybean acreage is likely to
expand again in the year 2000. We could see record production,
rising carry-over, and even lower prices than the $4.75 a
bushel expected this year.
Cotton and rice prices have also been very low this
marketing year. Cotton production, we think, will be up in the
year 2000, with the price outcome dependent very much on the
role of China as a cotton exporter in the world market.
This year's lower rice prices--they are down about 33
percent this year--will probably trim back acreage a little
bit, but continuing large rice stocks are going to hold prices
in check.
The picture for livestock and poultry in the year 2000 I
think is more optimistic than it is for crops. We expect cattle
prices to average about 5 percent higher. I would point out
that we are starting out this year with the largest number of
animals in feed lots in 25 years, so we are probably not going
to see much of a pop in cattle prices until we get into the
second half of the year.
Lower hog numbers are expected to reduce pork production
and push up hog prices about 15 percent. Broiler prices, on the
other hand, I think will be down a little bit, but lower feed
costs will help maintain producer net returns.
Milk is going to be the significant weak spot on the whole
livestock side of the economy this year. In the last 2 years,
1998 and 1999, and we had strong milk prices, we had low feed
costs. That gave us, in 1999, the highest year-over-year
increase in milk production in the decade of the 1990's, and
that continuing surge is going to keep pressure on milk prices
for much of the year 2000 and probably result in about a 13-
percent drop in milk prices for the year.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Well, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I would say that the year
2000 is shaping up to be a year of lower income, particularly
for producers of major field crops, for dairy, as well as for
other crops which I did not go into, such as tobacco, sugar,
peanuts, and some horticultural crops. So once again, it
appears that the role of Government payments is going to be a
crucial factor in determining where the state of farm finances
end up at the end of the year 2000.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEITH COLLINS
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to discuss the state of the farm economy and its prospects.
I will describe the situation in major commodity markets, the financial
well-being of farmers and the prospects for economic recovery.
While an overall farm economic crisis during the past year of
generally weak markets has been averted, in part due to emergency
assistance, market fundamentals remain weak, especially for crops.
Global economic prospects are improving, yet commodity supplies are
large and rapid recovery in farm income appears unlikely. In fact,
under current legislation and programs, net cash farm income in 2000 is
projected to be the lowest level since 1986, prompting the President,
consistent with his concerns about the 1996 Farm Bill, to include
several proposals in his budget to provide farmers and ranchers
additional income protection. While U.S. agriculture continues to face
the prospect of low prices and incomes and ongoing structural change,
many indicators remain favorable up to now, including asset values,
debt levels, inflation, interest rates, and productivity.
GENERAL ECONOMY BOOMS; AGRICULTURE SLUMPS--WHY?
The U.S. economy just established a record for the longest
expansion in history. Strong income growth, low unemployment, surging
productivity, low inflation and interest rates and a stunning increase
in equity markets have made life better for most Americans. While the
farm economy prospered in the mid 1990s, it did keep pace with the
general economy in the late 1990s. Several factors that propelled the
national economy have been absent from the farm economy.
One factor has been strong investment in the U.S. economy. The
growth in the U.S. economy combined with economic problems in recent
years in other countries has fueled an enormous increase in direct
foreign investment in the United States and a large increase in
investment in U.S. stocks and bonds. Another factor has been rapid
technological change and productivity increases which have reduced per
unit labor costs and improved competitiveness. The U.S. appears to be
in the global lead in high technology, ranging from information
sciences to biological sciences to communications, creating new
industries and transforming other industries that can use these
technologies, such as financial sectors, retailing, travel and
entertainment.
Production agriculture has been helped by some of these trends,
such as low inflation and interest rates and new technology. However,
production agriculture has been particularly vulnerable to foreign
competition and economic recession in foreign countries, which have
reversed the upward export trend of the earlier 1990s. In addition,
growth in investment has lagged that in the general economy, as
agriculture has not benefitted greatly from international capital and
has had a reduced rate of return on assets. Moreover, production
agriculture has probably not been able to utilize new technology to the
extent of the rapidly growing nonfarm industries.
As we assess the prospects for 2000, many agricultural commodity
markets show little improvement in their fundamentals. For the 1999/
2000 marketing year, USDA forecasts the average price of soybeans to be
the lowest since 1972/73, the prices of corn and wheat the lowest since
1986/87 and the price of rice the lowest since 1992/93. Cotton prices
are also down sharply and so far this season are the lowest since 1974/
75. Cattle and hog prices were relatively weak in 1999 but have
strengthened recently and are expected to be up this year. Milk prices
were relatively strong in 1999 but dropped sharply at year's end and
are expected to average the lowest level in 9 years in 2000.
In addition to historically low agricultural commodity prices, many
producers the past couple of years have been adversely affected by
drought, excessive heat, pests, flooding and wind which lowered crop
yields and quality, reduced forage supply and quality and lowered milk
production. In recent months, many areas of the United States have
experienced subnormal precipitation. Unseasonably mild and windy
weather also has accompanied the lack of precipitation since October,
increasing the evaporation of moisture from the topsoil. Soil moisture
levels are very low in the northern Great Plains and upper Mississippi
Valley due to the prolonged absence of precipitation. Another area,
extending from western Texas to southern California, also remains very
short of soil moisture. In addition, parts of the Great Plains, eastern
Corn Belt, mid-Atlantic and New England endured long-term drought in
1999, depleting subsoil moisture reserves in those areas.
Congress and the Administration have responded to these problems by
providing over $15 billion in emergency assistance to farmers and
ranchers the past 2 years, greatly limiting the farm financial stress
that farmers and ranchers would otherwise face because of historically
low prices and reduced production. These emergency payments plus
payments authorized under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (1996 Farm Bill) pushed government payments to a
record-high level in 1999 and net cash farm income to a near record-
high. Had Congress not provided emergency assistance, net cash income
would have likely fallen below $50 billion in 1999, the lowest level
since the farm financial crisis of the mid-1980s. Reduced government
payments and continued low prices could push net cash farm income below
$50 billion in 2000, increasing farm financial stress and debt
repayment problems.
EXPLAINING THE FARM ECONOMIC DOWNTURN IN MORE DETAIL
The primary source of the farm economy's weakness is imbalances in
commodity markets brought about by several years of large U.S.
production--despite production problems in many areas--and by lower
exports. Exports have been pulled down by large foreign production,
economic problems in Asia, Russia and South America and a strong
dollar.
Reduced Exports.--The value of U.S. agricultural exports in fiscal
year 2000 is forecast to remain at last year's $49 billion, after
reaching a record high of $60 billion in fiscal year 1996. Asia
accounts for a large portion of the drop in exports of both bulk and
high-value agricultural products. In fiscal year 1996, $26 billion in
U.S. agricultural products were exported to Asia, compared with $18
billion projected for this fiscal year, a drop of $8 billion.
As for total bulk products, such as feed grains, wheat, soybeans,
cotton and rice, export value is down 40 percent since 1996. Declines
in tonnage account for about one-fifth of the drop in export value of
bulk agricultural products, and declines in export prices account for
four-fifths of the drop. In contrast, the export value of high-value
agricultural products has changed little since fiscal year 1996,
remaining steady at about $32 billion. The value of livestock product
exports is projected to be down about 2 percent and the value of
poultry product exports is forecast to be off nearly one-quarter in
fiscal year 2000, compared with 4 years ago. However, the volume of
livestock and poultry products exported has increased since 1996.
As the global economy has improved, exports for some commodities
have picked up. Within this weak export picture, there has been some
positive news. In volume terms, U.S. corn exports are up nearly one-
third during January-November, compared with the same period last year,
with expanded sales to Japan, South Korea, Egypt, South America and
Taiwan. Wheat and wheat flour exports are up 9 percent over that
period, as sales to Japan, South Korea, Mexico and South America have
improved and food aid shipments to Russia led to a sharp increase in
exports to that country. During January-November, soybean exports were
up 13 percent over a year ago, as increased sales to East and Southeast
Asian countries more than offset reduced sales to Europe.
Although an acceleration of U.S. exports toward 1996 levels is not
expected, the apparent turnaround in several key macroeconomic
indicators make the outlook for higher exports more positive than it
has been in a couple of years. South Korea's economy has emerged from
recession, growing 9 percent in 1999, and the economic recovery that
began last year in Southeast Asia is expected to accelerate in 2000. In
addition, several Latin American countries are forecast to show
positive growth in 2000 after being in recession last year. With
economic recovery, most forecasters expect world economic growth in
2000 to exceed 3 percent, a rate not seen since 1997.
Another key factor for U.S. exports is the U.S. exchange rate. Over
the past year, the value of the U.S. dollar has been declining in value
against several key currencies. On an agriculture trade-weighted basis,
the value of the dollar is down about 5.5 percent from a year ago,
although the dollar continues to remain about 11 percent stronger than
in the early 1990s. A decline in the value of the dollar makes U.S.
commodities more attractive to foreign buyers.
Large Global Crop Production and Stocks.--Despite some weather
problems, global crop production exceeded consumption each of the past
3 years leading to rising U.S. and world stocks of grains and oilseeds.
Global stocks of grains at the end of the 1998/99 marketing year
reached 350 million tons, up from 256 million tons at the end of 1995/
96 marketing year. The growth in global carryover of grains is almost
entirely due to increased yields per acre, as grain planted area over
the past 3 years is about unchanged relative to the average of the
early to mid-1990s. In 1999/00, global consumption is expected to
exceed production causing global ending stocks of grain to drop to 335
million tons.
Global stocks of oilseeds have risen by 63 percent since 1996/97,
increasing from 17.1 to 27.9 million tons at the end of the 1998/99
marketing year. Unlike grains, much of the increase in oilseed
carryover can be attributed to increased plantings. World oilseed area
increased 8 percent from 1996 to 1998 and global oilseed area remained
about unchanged in 1999. In 1999/00, record global oilseed production
for the fourth consecutive year is expected to cause global ending
stocks of oilseeds to remain at near last year's level.
While adverse weather has reduced crop yields in many areas of the
United States over the past 2 years, these production declines
generally have been offset by good yields in other sections of the
country. In 1998/99, the U.S. corn and rice crops were the second
highest on record, soybean production was record high and the wheat
crop was the largest since 1990. Only cotton production was down
appreciably in 1998, as severe weather problems in much of the cotton
belt resulted in the smallest crop in nearly 10 years. In 1999/00,
weather adversely affected yields for most major crops. Even so, U.S.
rice production was record high, the corn crop was the fourth highest
on record and the soybean crop was the third highest on record.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE FARM CRISIS AGGREGATE INDICATORS
Cash Flow.--For 2000, farm cash receipts are forecast to fall to
$189.9 billion, or $17.7 billion below the record of $207.6 billion set
in 1997. Lower receipts mean lower net cash farm income, which for 2000
is forecast at the lowest level since 1986 and more than $9 billion
less than in 1999. These aggregate figures mask the steep declines in
cash receipts and farm income expected for major crops, hogs and milk.
Cash receipts for wheat, feed grains, soybeans, cotton and rice are
forecast to decline from a record $56.8 billion in 1997 to $40.3
billion in 2000, a 29-percent drop. While projected to be up from last
year's $9.2 billion and 1998's $9.4 billion, cash receipts for hogs are
forecast to be $9.7 billion in 2000, down 26 percent from 1997's $13.1
billion. Dairy receipts are forecast to drop to $21.4 billion in 2000,
down 9 percent from last year.
Government payments have offset much of the decline in cash
receipts for major crops, thereby helping to maintain producers' cash
flow. Total government payments increased from $7.5 billion in 1997 to
a record $22.7 billion last year. In calendar 2000, government payments
could exceed $17 billion under existing program authorities, the second
highest ever. The emergency farm aid package passed by Congress in 1999
is expected to provide $2.4 billion in payments to farmers in calendar
2000.
Farm cash production expenses, forecast at $171.5 billion in 2000,
are expected to increase by about 1 percent for the third consecutive
year, after rising more than 4 percent each year from 1993-97. A large
part of the stagnation in production expenses is due to the fall in
grain prices, which has greatly lowered livestock producers' feed
costs. Feed costs are projected to fall to $23.8 billion in 2000, down
from $26.3 billion in 1997.
Balance sheet.--Farm business balance sheets have shown
considerable improvement since the mid-1980s. Farm operator debt levels
are about 10 percent below the peak levels of the 1980s and asset
values are substantially higher. The debt-to-asset ratio for farm
operators is up a little from 1997, but it is still expected to remain
at about 16 percent at the end of 2000, compared with the low 20s
during the mid-1980s. Even though farmers' balance sheets are much
improved from the mid-1980s, the projected decline in farm income will
reduce farmers' credit reserves and an increasing number of producers
will face debt repayment problems.
Debt repayment capacity utilization measures the extent to which
farmers are using their available lines of credit. In 1999, record
government payments boosted net cash income and increased the level of
debt farmers could service, lowering farmers' debt repayment capacity
utilization to 56 percent of the debt that could be supported by
current income. In 2000, farmers are expected to use more than 66
percent of the debt that could be supported by their current income.
This figure is substantially down from over 100 percent in 1981 and
somewhat down from the more than 70 percent during 1977-85, but would
the highest level since 1985.
While the balance sheet for agriculture in the aggregate looks
reasonably sound, that could change if farmland values fall sharply.
Farm real estate values, which showed strong increases through much of
the 1990s, started to level off last year. Cropland values declined in
5states in 1998, and in 1999, cash rents declined in 9 states, although
the declines were small. In 2000, the value of farm real estate, which
represents the largest component of farm assets, is expected to rise
0.5 percent, compared with a 1-percent increase estimated last year.
Farmland values will likely remain stagnant or decline in areas of the
country in which crop production dominates the farmland market, but
increase in those areas where farmland values are influenced by urban
pressure and other factors, such as the Northeast and some Western
States. Farmland value data are reported with a lag, and thus far, the
data show the drop in hard hit crop regions have been fairly modest.
Recent Federal Reserve Bank data show that for certain parts of the
country, such as portions of Iowa, Illinois and Indiana, land prices
declined 2-5 percent between October 1, 1998, and October 1, 1999.
Given current production and price prospects, we can expect further
pressure on land prices in the months ahead, particularly in the Corn
Belt, Plains States, and Mid-south.
Commercial lenders report declining farm loan repayment rates,
increasing numbers of farm loan extensions and renewals and more
stringent collateral requirements. However, all major institutional
lenders continue to experience historically low levels of
delinquencies, foreclosures, net loan charge-offs and loan
restructuring. In 1985, over 10 percent of all bank nonreal estate
loans to farmers were either delinquent (past due 30-90 days) or
nonperforming (past due 90 or more). In the first quarter of 1999, 2
percent of all bank nonreal estate loans were either delinquent or
nonperforming. Bank charge-off rates, which reached 3.36 percent of
nonreal estate loans in 1986, remained below 0.2 percent in the first
quarter of 1999. In addition, delinquencies of the Farm Service Agency
(FSA) have declined from a year ago and since 1996.
Over the past year, the amount of credit provided to farmers and
ranchers by FSA directly or through credit guarantees to commercial
banks has increased sharply. The total value of loans provided to farm
borrowers through direct and loan guarantees is up 75 percent, compared
with a year ago. Congress authorized over $5.7 billion in FSA
guaranteed and direct loan program authority in fiscal year 2000 to
assist farmers in obtaining credit. The fiscal year 2000 program level
for FSA farm loans is $1.9 billion more than the $3.8 billion obligated
during fiscal year 1999 and $3.5 billion more than the $2.2 billion
obligated in fiscal year 1998.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE FARM CRISIS--FARM LEVEL INDICATORS
On January 1, 1999, USDA classified 59 percent of farms as being in
a favorable financial position--positive cash flow and low debt
compared with assets. The remaining farms had a debt-to-asset ratio
above 0.4, 4 percent of farms; or negative farm income, 33 percent of
farms; or both, 5 percent of farms. Most dairy producers entered this
year in a strong financial position following 2 years of strong prices
and low feed costs. However, sharply lower milk prices could contribute
to growing financial stress for those producers who remain highly
leverage. For producers of field crops who are already highly
leveraged, continued low prices of these commodities and weather-
reduced production will increase their financial vulnerability. The
areas of the country that specialize in the production of these
commodities, such as the Corn Belt, Plains States, Delta and Southeast
and areas affected by adverse weather, will likely see more of an
increase in farm financial stress than other areas of country. The
extent farm financial stress increases in the coming months will also
depend on whether the Congress passes an emergency aid package and the
size of that package.
Looking ahead at the 2000/01 crop years, income prospects from a
crop sector perspective suggest sharp declines in income. The net
income--cash receipts plus government payments less cash production
expenses--for wheat, feed grains, upland cotton, rice and soybeans
could fall to $18 billion, down $6 billion from $23.8 billion for 1999/
00 and the 1995-99 average of $24.0 billion.
MARKET PROSPECTS--THE NEXT 12-18 MONTHS
Crops.--Large U.S. and global production of major crops coupled
with more than ample stocks going into 1999/2000 marketing year are
expected to continue to pressure grain, oilseed, cotton and rice prices
through the remainder of the 1999/00 marketing year. Given no major
weather disruptions in the major crop growing regions of the country,
crop prices are expected to remain low over the next several months and
into the 2000/01 marketing year.
In 1999, U.S. producers planted the lowest wheat acreage since
1972. But, wheat prices in 1999/00 are projected to decline from $2.65
per bushel last season to $2.50-$2.60 per bushel this marketing year,
as winter wheat yields were record-high in 13 states and higher carryin
stocks this season nearly made up for the year-to-year drop in
production, leaving total wheat supplies very near last year's level.
Wheat exports are forecast to be up slightly, reflecting the
combination of strong export competition and increased food aid
shipments. However, total use is projected to fall this season due to a
nearly 100-million-bushel drop in feed use. Ending stocks are forecast
to increase from 946 million bushels at the end of the last season to
997 million bushels at the end of this marketing year, the highest
since 1987/88. (This forecast does not account for the 3-million-ton
food aid program announced on February 10.)
Looking ahead to the 2000/01 marketing year, which begins on June
1, a further decline in winter wheat acreage will likely push total
U.S. wheat acreage and wheat production lower. Winter wheat plantings
last fall were down 1 percent from a year earlier. Lower wheat supplies
and some improvement in exports could lead to slightly higher wheat
prices next season.
The 1999/00 corn crop of 9.44 billion bushels is down from last
year's crop of 9.76 billion bushels. While the size of the corn crop is
down this season, total supplies are up as higher beginning carryover
added nearly 500 million bushels to current-year supplies. Higher use
is expected to more than offset the increase in total supplies, causing
ending stocks of corn to drop from last season's 1.79 billion bushels
to 1.74 billion bushels at the end of this marketing year. Total corn
use this season is projected to reach a record-high 9.5 billion
bushels, compared with last season's 9.3 billion bushels, as domestic
use is projected to increase by about 3 percent while exports are
projected to fall slightly from last year. The farm price of corn for
the 1999/00 marketing year is projected to average $1.75-$2.15 per
bushel, compared with last year's $1.94.
In 2000, corn acreage is expected to be near last year's level and
assuming trend yields the corn crop would be up slightly and total corn
supplies would be near this year's level. Total use also may be near
this year's level, as ethanol use expands but declining livestock
numbers hold down feed use. With little to no change in ending stocks,
corn prices are expected to show only modest improvement next season.
Soybean plantings of nearly 74 million acres in 1999 exceeded the
record of 72 million acres in 1998. However, soybean production dropped
4 percent in 1999, as drought adversely affected yields in several
States. Despite the drop in production, total soybean supplies this
season are record-high, as larger carryin stocks more than compensated
for the drop in production. Most of the increase in supplies is
expected to be absorbed by larger exports, which are forecast to be up
11 percent, leaving soybean ending stocks about unchanged from last
year. Soybean prices for 1999/00 are currently projected to average
$4.50-$5.00 per bushel, compared with last season's $4.93.
Plantings of soybeans could continue to expand in 2000, as returns
to soybeans, including loan deficiency payments and marketing loan
gains, relative to other major crops encourage farmers to switch
acreage into soybeans. Higher acreage and trend yields could lead to
record soybean production in 2000 and another year of rising carryover.
Under the pressure of rising stocks, soybean prices could face
additional pressure in the 2000/01 marketing year.
The 1999 cotton crop is estimated at slightly less than 17 million
bales, up 22 percent from last year's crop of 13.92 million bales,
pushing 1999/00 carryover stocks up nearly 12 percent from last year's
3.94 million bales. In both, 1998 and 1999 weather reduced cotton
yields in several States. Despite abundant current-year supplies, U.S.
cotton mill use is projected to decline from last season's 10.4 million
bales to 10.2 million bales, as textile imports continue to grow. U.S.
cotton exports are forecast at 6.4 million bales during 1999/00, up 2.1
million bales from last year, as the continuation of Step 2 payments
has improved the competitiveness of U.S. cotton in U.S. and foreign
markets. From August through December, the U.S. farm price of cotton
averaged 44.9 cents per pound, compared with 60.2 cents last season.
Plantings of cotton are expected to remain about unchanged in 2000.
However, cotton production could be up in 2000, assuming weather does
not adversely affect yields in the major cotton producing States.
Despite the expected increase in production, price prospects could
possibly improve, especially if China's supply of exportable cotton
declines in the coming months.
Rice production in 1999 rose 12 percent from a year earlier, as
acreage rose 7 percent to the second highest level on record and per
acre yields improved. The combination of larger production and stagnant
total use is projected to lead to a near doubling in carryover stocks
to 40.6 million cwt. Rice exports are projected to increase slightly in
1999/00, due to stronger milled rice exports resulting from lower U.S.
prices and larger food aid shipments, while domestic use is expected to
drop from last year's record high. Rice prices are forecast to average
$5.75-$6.25 per cwt., compared with last season's $8.89. The decline in
prices could lead to a cutback in rice plantings and production in
2000, but large carry-in and another year of large supplies will likely
continue to pressure rice prices during the 2000/01 marketing year.
Other crops face mixed prospects in 2000. Sales receipts of fruit,
vegetable, greenhouse and nursery crops are expected to rise $1.2
billion to $41.7 billion. While fresh vegetable prices are likely to
rise from last year's reduced levels, fresh citrus prices are returning
to normal after the December 1998 freeze. Horticultural exports are
also likely to rise slightly in 2000 after 2 flat years, as Asian
economies strengthen and U.S. citrus supplies recover. Tobacco receipts
will decline again in 2000 to $1.8 billion, down $0.4 billion from the
year before. Rising retail prices and reduced use are causing sharp
quota reductions. Peanut production may decline a little with a return
to trend yields and reduce cash receipts somewhat. Sugar production is
likely to continue growing, despite reduced prices, as weak prices for
alternative crops deter switching. International trade obligations will
cause increasing concern about 2000/2001 imports and supplies.
Livestock and Poultry.--Record-high per capita meat production
pressured livestock and broiler prices last year. In 2000, higher
poultry production is expected to be about offset by lower beef and
pork production, causing per capita meat consumption to drop below last
year's. Lower red meat production is expected to boost prices for
cattle and hogs in 2000. In addition, livestock, poultry and dairy
producers should benefit from another year of low feed costs.
In 1999, hog prices steadily improved throughout the year averaging
$34 per cwt. for the year. During the fourth quarter of 1999, hog
prices averaged over $36 per cwt., more than $14 higher than one year
earlier. In December and January, hog prices averaged $38 per cwt.,
moving above break-even for the first time since late 1997. Responding
to the low returns the past couple of years, producers began to reduce
their breeding herds in late 1998 and continued to reduce them in 1999.
Although the number of sows farrowing in June-November was down 4
percent from a year earlier, the increase in pigs per litter was up 2
percent, leading to a 3-percent decline in the pig crop. The drop in
hog numbers is expected to lead to nearly a 4-percent decline in pork
production in 2000. The decline in pork production could push hog
prices above $40 per cwt. during the second half of this year, with hog
prices averaging $39-$41 for the entire year.
Cattle prices are projected to average about 5 percent higher in
2000 following last year's nearly 7 percent increase, as the
liquidation of the nation's cattle herd finally leads to reduced beef
production. The USDA's January 1 inventory of cattle and calves on
farms showed 98 million head, down from 103.5 million head on January
1, 1996. In 1999, lower cattle and calf numbers did not translate into
less beef production, as record slaughter weights, another year of poor
incentives to hold back heifers for herd expansion and reduced forage
due to drought led to record beef production. Beef production will
remain large during the first 6 months of 2000, as cattle on feed
inventories continue at record levels. On January 1, the number of
heifers on feed was up 11 percent, while the number of steers on feed
was up 6 percent from a year ago. During the second half of 2000,
higher cattle prices and low feed costs should provide an incentive for
producers to reduce heifer slaughter and begin rebuilding the cattle
herd. Reduced placements of cattle on feed is expected to lead to a
sharp reduction in beef production during the last half of 2000. For
all of 2000, beef production is forecast to be down 3 percent.
Broiler prices in 2000 are projected to be off about 2 percent from
last year after falling 8 percent in 1999. In response to attractive
returns in 1998, poultry producers expanded the hatchery flock which
could be about 5-percent larger than a year ago through the first half
of this year. In the face of larger supplies, prices for whole birds
are expected to remain weaker than a year ago. Prices for most broiler
parts in January were 10-20 percent below a year ago, while strength in
the export market kept leg quarter prices about 5 percent above last
year. Despite the price drop, producer net returns are expected to
continue to remain positive.
For all of 1999, milk prices averaged $14.38 per cwt., down from
the record of $15.42 per cwt. in 1998, but still well above the
previous 5-year average. These strong milk prices coupled with low feed
costs and favorable weather in most areas of the country caused
producers to expand milk production by over 3 percent in 1999, the
highest year-to-year gain in milk production this decade. Increasing
milk production and seasonally soft demand for dairy products caused
milk prices to collapse at the end of 1999. The surge in milk
production will likely pressure milk prices over the next several
months. For all of 2000, the all-milk price is forecast to average
$12.55 per cwt., down nearly $2 from last year and about $1.60 below
the previous 5-year average.
OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING THE OUTCOME
There is no doubt the farm economy is weak and many producers are
having serious cash-flow problems. A number of key factors that will
determine the financial fate of U.S. agriculture over the coming year
are as yet unknown. A few key things to watch:
Market access.--There is continuing concern by producers over the
acceptance of transgenic crops and the economic returns to producing
them. Consumer and government reaction to these crops in overseas
markets will determine producer use of transgenic seeds, marketing
practices, and farm prices.
China.--China will continue to be a potentially major factor in
world agricultural markets for several reasons. First, China's domestic
macroeconomic policy is a factor in Asian trade patterns and exchange
rates. Second, China has not been much of a wheat importer in recent
years and holds large stocks of cotton and corn. China has lowered
producer prices for major commodities in 2000 and that may result in
some crop production cutbacks or switching among crops. China's exports
limit U.S. prices of corn and cotton, but production changes and stock
reductions in the 2000 crop year may begin to limit China's effect on
world markets.
Accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) would be a very
positive factor for U.S. exports and farm prices. China's commitment to
eliminate export subsidies should reduce their exports and reinforce
domestic policy changes that reduce production incentives. Recent USDA
analysis suggests that U.S. farm exports to China could rise as by at
least $2 billion by 2005.
Global weather.--As always, adverse or exceptionally good weather
around the world could affect the level of crop food, feed and fiber
supplies and prices. At this point, weather generally looks favorable,
with dry areas in the U.S., North Africa and the Middle East.
Emergency assistance legislation.--The drop in farm prices the past
2 years raised concerns with the farm income safety net resulting in
Federal emergency assistance of over $15 billion. The President's
fiscal year 2001 budget proposes a new farm safety net initiative. The
initiative, designed to broaden Federal support, includes four
complementary proposals that would: (1) enhance farm income support by
providing supplementary countercyclical income assistance, (2) increase
environmental benefits and farm income with expanded conservation
programs, (3) improve risk management programs and (4) expand economic
opportunities in farm and rural areas. These legislative proposals
would provide about $11.5 billion in additional assistance to the
farmers and ranchers during 2000-2002.
The income assistance program would provide supplemental income
assistance payments to eligible producers of wheat, feed grains, rice,
upland cotton, and oilseeds. The supplemental payments would be
provided to eligible producers if the projected nationwide gross income
for the crop falls below 92 percent of the preceding 5-year average. To
target the program to smaller farmers who typically have lower farm
income, payments would be subject to a separate $30,000 per person
payment limitation. The income assistance program is projected to cost
$3.1 billion during fiscal year 2000-01. In addition, the President
proposed to extend the dairy price support program, which terminates at
the end of this year, for 2 additional years.
The budget proposes an additional $1.3 billion for a Farm
Conservation Programs Initiative, which includes a new $600 million
Conservation Security Program to provide annual payments to farmers and
ranchers who implement sound conservation practices. Additional funding
is also provided for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP) and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP). In addition,
the President proposed to remove the enrollment cap on the Wetland
Reserve Program (WRP) and to increase the enrollment cap on the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) from 36.4 to 40 million acres.
The fiscal year 2001 budget would extend the premium discount
available in 1999 and 2000 for farmers who purchase buy-up coverage for
crop insurance. The premium discount and the costs associated with
higher participation are expected to total $640 million. The budget
also requests $100 million to establish coverage for multi-year losses
and $100 million to provide livestock producers with price protection.
Lastly, the Administration proposes using $80 million in fiscal
year 2001 to provide equity capital for new livestock and other
processing cooperatives. The proposal would help address concerns about
market concentration and provide farmers with an additional source of
income through cooperative ownership.
That concludes my remarks, and I invite questions. Thank you.
TABLE 1.--FARM ECONOMY OVERVIEW
[Dollars in billillions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998 1999E 2000F
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash receipts................... $199.1 $207.6 $196.8 $191.9 $189.9
Government payments............. $7.3 $7.5 $12.2 $22.7 $17.2
Cash expenses................... $159.9 $169.0 $167.8 $170.0 $171.5
Net cash farm income............ $57.5 $58.5 $55.0 $59.1 $49.7
Net farm income................. $54.9 $48.6 $44.1 $48.1 $40.4
Farm debt....................... $156.1 $165.4 $172.9 $172.8 $172.5
Farm assets..................... $1,003.9 $1,051.6 $1,064.3 $1,067.2 $1,072.8
Debt-to-assets (percent)........ 15.6 15.7 16.2 16.2 16.1
Agricultural exports)........... $59.8 $57.3 $53.6 $49.0 $49.0
Agricultural imports............ $32.6 $35.8 $37.0 $37.4 $38.0
Value of the dollar \1\......... 101.0 109.6 115.5 112.0 108.7
Farm production (mmt) \2\....... 410 417 431 415 NA
Farm prices received \3\........ 112 107 101 95 NA
Grain stocks-to-use (percent) 16.0 17.9 18.7 18.1 NA
\4\............................
CPI-food (percent).............. 3.3 2.6 2.2 2.2 1.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E=estimate; F=forecast.
\1\ Real agricultural trade weighted, 1990=100.
\2\/ U.S. production of grains and oilseeds.
\3\ Index of prices received by producers for all farm products, 1990-92=100, data for 1999 is for the month of
August, 1999.
\4\ Marketing year world ending stocks in the year indicated.
Note: Data and forecasts are based on early February 2000 conditions.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Collins. We have been
joined by other Senators, members of the committee, and I am
going to yield to them at this point for any comments or
questions they may have of our witness panel.
Senator Gorton.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLADE GORTON
Senator Gorton. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You
recognize better than anyone how we are pulled by our various
responsibilities. I have a hearing starting in 10 minutes or so
with another part of the Department of Agriculture, the Forest
Service, for which I have a particular responsibility, so I
appreciate being able to make a statement and at least leave
some questions for Mr. Schumacher with respect to my
constituents who live under the ambit of his jurisdiction.
We are not any different than that of the rest of the
country, from wheat growers to apple orchards, potato growers,
asparagus farmers, and an adverse set of markets has really
taken its toll in Washington State as well as it has elsewhere.
My farmers produce more than 230 food, feed, and seed crops,
and only two, wheat and barley, are under the guise of program
crops. When overseas markets are lost and ignored, and when
excessive regulations are imposed, when the tools necessary for
production are stripped away, and when the younger generation
becomes discouraged, they do need some forms of assistance.
Last year, one of our peculiar needs was with apple
growers. Our most recognizable and profitable crop had its
lowest price level in decades. There was a combination of
adverse economic conditions both at home and abroad that were
directly related to that struggle. There were all kinds of
environmental restrictions placed on the growers, and our
growers also needed support in overseas marketing and sales.
Under Secretary Schumacher visited the State last July,
unfortunately politicized the plight of the growers and Members
of Congress from the State. They did tell him of a desire to
see loan programs made available for their commodity as well as
increased trade and market access.
You, Mr. Chairman, ended up being tremendously helpful in
providing in the big agricultural relief bill a specific
mention of apples, I think perhaps for the first time ever.
Then, of course, in December the President came to Seattle
during the World Trade Organization ministerial, and made the
apple industry his poster child for world trade 1 day before he
trashed the entire WTO ministerial itself and guaranteed for
all practical purposes that we will not get any agricultural
trade opening during the balance of his term.
Now, in spite of what you did, Mr. Chairman, I have just
learned that several of our apple grower applications for the
loan program have been declined by the Department of
Agriculture, and I hope that Under Secretary Schumacher will
explain why, and when we can get some of the things that you
helped create for us.
On perhaps a less significant level our potato growers have
expressed concern about their markets, and are very worried
about the closure of the Foreign Agricultural Service Office in
Singapore, and perhaps the Under Secretary can tell us what his
alternatives are to that.
Now, we did just in the last 48 hours have the good news
that China has finally gotten into the wheat market and
announced a 50,000 metric ton purchase, but that 50,000 metric
ton purchase by China is exactly one-eighth of the loss that we
had from 1998 to 1999 in wheat sales to Pakistan, our best
existing market, and I think we need to know, my wheat growers
need to know how it is that we suffered such tremendous losses
in our sales to Pakistan.
Asparagus growers are concerned about the influence of low
cost product from Peru, hop growers about the loss of chemical
tools, cherry growers are threatened by a lack of labor and
housing, dairymen and cattlemen are constantly battling Federal
agencies on water use and buffer zones, pea and lentil growers
are at odds over the cuts in the Public Law 480 program, and
all of the commodities in my State are barraged by those in the
Administration and out of it advocating an anti-dam sentiment,
cutting off water supplies in areas in which agriculture is
simply not possible without irrigation.
So basically, it seems to me that we need an Administration
that speaks with one voice in favor of agricultural industries,
that does not simply advocate with lip service opening up
foreign markets, but really helps to do so, that does not
destroy by its regulations with respect to the tools of
agriculture the availability of the tools that agriculture
needs, including water, and that attempts to advance both a
free market system and the use of the huge amounts of money,
the billions of dollars that we appropriated for temporary
relief, at the same time.
I must say, I am frustrated when you provide us with help
for crops like apples and nothing much happens. I am frustrated
by the loss of markets that we have historically held in the
United States, and I am frustrated by the increasing
regulations that impose grave difficulties on a business, on a
profession that already has enough problems created by lower
market prices overseas, and by increasing competition, and does
not need to be regulated out of existence by its own government
at the same time.
So I thank you, and now I have got to do the Forest Service
bit, but I do hope that Secretary Schumacher will talk both
about the apple loan program, about the office in Singapore,
and about how it is that we have managed to lose our wheat
markets so dramatically in countries that have been good
customers of ours in the past, while we are at least beginning
to get a little bit of encouraging news from China, though only
very modest in comparison with what we have lost.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Senator, and we will
see that the questions you have are submitted for the record.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Senator Burns.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding another hearing today so we may
further discuss the administration's farm proposal.
As I mentioned at the last hearing, I have more than a few concerns
with this plan. To start with, this administration is asking for less
money than last year. In small grain country there has been no
improvement in price or movement. An effective and imaginative approach
that will provide adequate short-term assistance, as well as a long-
term plan to keep farmers in business is not only needed but required.
The administration's proposal before us today, does neither.
It appears that the Administration is putting a heavier emphasis on
the conservation side of their proposal, when we have an economic
emergency across the countryside. Our efforts should be spent on trade
and economic issues, not on promoting Vice President Gore's
environmental agenda. Good economics and prosperity in farm country do
more for good conservation practices.
I am very concerned about the $1.3 billion for conservation in the
farm safety plan. Not only does it promote an agenda that is not
necessarily in the best interest of the agricultural community, but it
leaves out any real commitment to crop insurance reform. It is
imperative we have an effective risk management plan. All the
conservation initiatives in the world are not going to help a producer
make sound economic decisions to keep their farm a sustainable
operation in the first place.
I think conservation plans can be highly effective. I don't mean to
downplay their importance. However, I am very suspicious about this
proposal and its intent. Especially when staff levels for technical
assistance for NRCS were not adequately increased. CRP acreage would be
increased in this proposal from 36.5 million acres to 45 million acres,
meaning there will be more contracts to administer. There is no way the
staff levels allocated will be able to handle the increased workload.
Effectively, this proposal provides no real solutions to the farm
crisis. The counter-cyclical income support proposal provides only $6
billion over the next 3 years. Last year alone, the emergency package
totaled $8.5 billion, and over the past 2 years, over $16 billion has
gone to agricultural producers. Even with the counter-cyclical income
assistance plan as a supplement to AMTA, $6 billion is simply not going
to pull farmers through.
This new Farm Safety Net proposal also contains a $30,000 cap on
payments. Montana producers cannot support their families and stay in
business on $30,000. Currently, with the $40,000 payment limit, many
Montana farmers and ranchers are already eliminated. I have no idea why
the USDA is decreasing the amount to further hurt farmers.
18 percent of producers in this nation account for 85 percent of
production. USDA figures estimate that only 8 percent of the nation's
producers will be eliminated from this payment plan. Again, I have no
idea where USDA came up with this figure. I believe a much larger
number than 8 percent would be eliminated from the counter-cyclical
payment. It should not be the intent of this proposal to put the
primary producers of this country at a disadvantage.
I know my Montana farmers and ranchers are not looking forward to
another year of zero profit. However, it seems that is what this plan
would provide them.
At a time when we are fighting for a place in the world market, why
we are cutting funds for important export programs? Nearly every export
program was cut. The Public Law 480 program was cut drastically as was
the Section 416 program. Farm-states like Montana depend on export
programs for their agricultural economy. We have been cut off from over
10 percent of the world market, due to sanctions and under-funded and
under-utilized market development programs.
This administration has shown no stomach to take on our
competitors. We must use these programs and stop allowing our
competitors an advantage. Why do you feel these tools provided you by
Congress are either unimportant or misunderstood or ineffective? If it
is the latter two, why hasn't the administration approached Congress
with some ideas to make them understood and effective?
Mr. Secretary, all the social programs that look and sound nice can
all be replaced by a strong farm economy. That is what we need for
rural economic development. There can be no other way. Excess acres in
CRP has led to the decay of our rural cities and towns. Our standard of
life in rural America continues to decline. This administration can
brag all they want about how great this economy is and has been, but
that has not been the case in farm country and the figures show it. We
cannot get a handle on our cost production. Unrealistic rules and
regulations cost untold dollars--dollars we do not have. It is not
whether we like to do the right thing to ensure sustainability of our
operations; it is a fact that we do not have the money.
In times like these our producers need every available marketing
option open to them. We must provide them effective risk management. If
we are not, why not? We must assist in a reliable export system. If we
are not, why not? We must assist in short-term resources to again cope
with another year of depressed grain prices and if we are not, why not?
I do not know how many employees you have there between 13th and
14th on Independence and how many of them have BS's, MS's and PHD's .
It sounds like we have some misdirected resources that should be
spending valuable time devoted to farm income. Mr. Secretary, that is
where it is at . . .
Thank you again Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with you
and other members on this committee to come up with effective solutions
to the farm crisis.
Senator Cochran. Senator Dorgan.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this
hearing, and let me also thank you for helping us in Congress
craft an emergency package to respond to collapsed commodity
and livestock prices, which has been very important to family
farmers. In fact, I think the testimony today by Mr. Schumacher
and Mr. Collins indicates that, without the two emergency
packages in the last couple of years, the farm economy would
have been in much more desperate trouble than it now finds
itself in.
I must say--just to begin, before I ask a question of the
witnesses--I was in Seattle as well, and it is interesting how
two people can have different views of the exact same event. I
was, in fact, at the presentation that President Clinton made
to the apple growers and others in Seattle, and my own view of
that circumstance is that the President did not trash the WTO,
as was said by my colleague.
In fact, he stated the obvious: When we talk about
globalization, and the movement towards a global economy, the
rules of trade must keep pace with the movements towards
globalization. The rules have not kept pace, and the result was
tens of thousands of people marching in the streets of Seattle.
I think the President simply stated the obvious, and did not in
any way trash the WTO talks and put us in a position where we
will not get an agricultural agreement. I just wanted to make
that point.
I do not think you will ever have trade talks, especially
dealing with agriculture, but trade talks generally, without
having substantial numbers of people demanding that the rules
of trade be discussed along with the increasing pace towards
globalization. Those rules are critically important to working
people, to the environment, and to a range of other issues.
Having said that, let me now say to Mr. Schumacher and Mr.
Collins: Your testimony is not very heartening to those of us
who are yearning for a stronger agricultural economy. Mr.
Schumacher, you talked about the past. Last year, U.S. farmers
experienced the lowest wheat prices in 8 years, lowest corn
prices in more than a decade, lowest soybean prices in 27
years, lowest hog prices since the depression, the steepest
decline in milk prices in history, and so on. When you talk
about the future, Mr. Collins, you talk about U.S. agriculture
continuing to face the prospect of low prices and incomes, and
ongoing structural change.
I guess that leads to this question. Farmers are now in the
Dakotas preparing to think through their plans for the year.
They are going to need to borrow some money. They are going to
go to a lender to talk about getting some seed, and some fuel,
perhaps machinery repairs in order to plant some seed this
spring.
Their lenders are only going to look at what the current
farm program provides as a safety net. I assume the lenders
will not be able to look at some anticipated emergency response
that may or may not happen later in the year. While these
emergency responses have been critical, I expect that if we do
not do something to change the underlying safety net itself, a
lot of farmers are going to find their lenders saying, well,
look, all we can do is project what might happen to you given
market prices and given the current farm program. We cannot
anticipate that Congress may or may not pass some kind of
emergency piece later.
Am I correct in that circumstance? I mean, have you
analyzed that, Mr. Schumacher?
Mr. Schumacher. If I may, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I went through
the same discussions with farmers from North Dakota,
Washington, and California in the last few weeks. The farmers
are saying that the Congress will provide another emergency
package. And the lenders are saying, well, we are not sure, or,
we are not sure what form that might take. The Administration
has a proposal on the table that will extend a couple of years,
to give a little more surety to farmers and their lenders so
they can get through probably another year or year and a half,
of a pretty tough time in commodities.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Collins.
FARM SAFETY NET
Mr. Collins. I agree with your general assessment, Mr.
Dorgan. Certainly a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
I think if you are a banker particularly, we know from Federal
Reserve surveys over the last 2 years, that bankers have been
increasing credit requirements on farmers.
You combine that with the fact that income to debt is going
to go down. That ratio will go down quite substantially in the
year 2000 without additional government payments. And I think
there is no question that makes it more difficult to get a loan
for those producers that are on the edge. Yes.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I know that you do not relish
seeing myself and my colleague, Senator Conrad, come to the
floor to talk about agriculture, but to us it is the single
most important issue in our State's economy. Almost 40 percent
of North Dakota's economy is agriculture. And it has just
dropped off the table. We have been hit by floods, by chronic
rain and moisture that has caused the worst crop disease in an
entire century, on top of collapsed prices and a safety net
that just does not make up the difference. So that is what has
pressed us on behalf of our constituents to say we have to do
something different.
Your testimony today, Mr. Schumacher and Mr. Collins, in my
judgment, underscores the need for us to review how we can
change the underlying safety net, how we can make changes to it
that provide more structure and more assistance during
collapsed grain prices without having to rely on an emergency
bill later in the year. Because if we have to rely on an
emergency bill again this year or next, a lot of those farmers
will be told by their bankers, you do not cash flow here, you
better take whatever little equity is left and get off the
family farm.
And my fear is that we are losing so many family farmers
because we have a lot of pride of authorship in the current
farm bill and a reluctance to reopen it. It is painfully
obvious to virtually everyone that this is not working. This
would work in certain times. During good times, when prices are
good, you could transition and it would be just fine.
You could transition people out of a safety net with $5
wheat. I suppose it would be just fine. But when grain prices
collapse, this is an unworkable system. This farm program does
not work. The quicker Congress comes to grips with that, the
better, and the more family farmers will be given a chance to
continue to do what they do best.
So I think your testimony today gives us a good description
of where we are, a description of where you think we are
headed, and this ought to be a wake-up call to every single
Member of Congress who cares about farm policy and cares about
retaining a network of family farms in this country's future.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Dorgan.
Senator Durbin, I had indicated that Senators could either
make an opening statement or ask questions, because I know
there are other obligations that each of us has. If you want to
do both or one, that is your choice.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN
Senator Durbin. At the risk of pushing too hard, I will
submit my statement for the record and make a very condensed
version of it, and ask a few questions, all in 5 minutes.
Let me first thank you all for being here. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman for this hearing.
Mr. Collins, we have had a chance to speak many, many
times. And, Mr. Schumacher, of course, Mr. Kaplan, great to
have your team here with us today.
I am trying to step back for a moment. I listened to my
colleague from the State of North Dakota and so many others in
the farm belt, I'm probably trying to do the impossible. I am
trying to figure out whether this is an anomaly that we are
living through and, a few years from now, we will look back and
say, those were the bad times and we have recovered, or whether
we are facing a trend line here, which is inexorable, that we
just cannot overcome.
Are we facing changed circumstances in the global economy,
when it comes to agriculture, which we just have to concede are
inevitable? Are we facing new production in countries that,
years ago, could not have considered it, at levels that we
never would have been able to predict, that have now become our
competition? Are we dealing with a global demand for product
which is so unpredictable from year to year that we find
ourselves at the mercy of this market? Can we even, on the best
bipartisan day, come up with a new approach to helping American
farmers that can anticipate some of these variables, as well as
the variable of weather and exchange rates and so many other
things that come into play?
PREPARED STATEMENT
I guess, Mr. Collins, since yours is the role of an
economist, I really would try to ask you if you feel that there
are certain changes in the global economy that account for the
current doldrums that we have been in in agriculture for the
last couple of years and appear to face for the next few months
at least.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN
Good afternoon. Chairman Cochran, Senator Kohl thank you for
holding this important hearing today. I think it is important for this
committee to examine the severe economic crisis that continues to
plague rural America while exploring options that can help relieve the
stress and promote U.S. agricultural products abroad.
First, as I've said before, I am encouraged by the Administration's
proposal designed to improve the farm safety net. A quick review of
that proposal suggests that it would be a significant boost to Illinois
farmers. In fact, it would mean more than $140 million under USDA's
Supplementary Income Assistance Program, over $60 million for
conservation programs, and more than $64 million in new risk management
assistance for Illinois farmers in the first year alone.
Obviously, our farmers need help. According to a University of
Illinois study, about a fifth of the state's 73,000 farms won't cover
their 1999 operating expenses and a majority won't make enough to cover
family living expenses. Farm net worth is expected to drop about 15.5
percent on average. The Illinois Farm Bureau predicts that about 18
percent of Illinois farms will have negative 1999 net incomes and about
22 percent are in danger of going out of business.
Mr. Chairman, since 1989 the federal government has spent $27
billion in emergency funding for farm-related disasters, 60 percent or
$15.9 billion in the last 2 years alone.
I think it's important for all of us to realize that the 1996 Farm
Bill, Freedom to Farm, was not written in stone. It can and should be
changed. I believe we must start now by reforming Freedom to Farm
because clearly it has failed to meet the most basic needs of
producers. Restoring the farm safety net, targeting payments to farmers
in need, and ensuring that livestock producers are not left behind
should be the first steps.
I also believe that we should begin a bipartisan effort to expand
markets for American agricultural products so that farmers can take
advantage of the immense buying capacity of developing countries. I am
pleased that Under Secretary Gus Schumacher has joined us today to talk
about efforts being undertaken by the Foreign Agricultural Service.
Allow me to touch briefly on Africa. As you probably know, I was in
Sub-Saharan Africa in January and had an opportunity to see U.S. food
aid programs in action. I was impressed and heartened by direct feeding
programs as well as programs that sell U.S. food products at low cost
to finance development projects. But I was overwhelmed by the impact of
AIDS on Africa--particularly by the millions of children being left
orphaned by the epidemic and the devastating impact on African
countries' economies. I believe U.S. food aid could be used to target
communities heavily affected by AIDS. I recently introduced
legislation, the AIDS Orphans Relief Act of 2000 (S. 2030), to target
$50 million of U.S. food aid for nutritional assistance for people
living with AIDS, for families and children affected by AIDS, and for
development projects for communities heavily impacted by AIDS.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to get Under Secretary Schumacher's
views on this legislation and the potential for U.S. food aid being
used to help those children, families, and communities affected by AIDS
in Africa and elsewhere in the world. I would also like to suggest that
the Senate Appropriations Committee, particularly the Agriculture and
Foreign Operations Subcommittees, should schedule a joint hearing to
further explore this issue.
Finally, I included language in last year's bill calling upon the
Administration to specifically request funding in fiscal year 2001 to
implement the U.S. Action Plan on Food Security. Instead, I found a 17
percent drop in Public Law 480 funding (from $1.23 billion to $1.02
billion), and no specific program funding for the Action Plan. I'm very
interested in an explanation on this matter.
Mr. Chairman, again thank you for the opportunity to raise these
important issues today.
CAUSES OF AGRICULTURAL SLUMP
Mr. Collins. Your comment just before those questions is a
whole bunch of questions in one, and I would almost like to
say, all of the above, to all of the factors that you raised.
There are a couple of things that strike me, and let me go back
to the simplistic part first. There are two fundamental forces
that have been at play over the last couple of years. One has
been a dramatic slowdown in the world economy. We were growing
at 3 to 3.5 percent and, all of a sudden, we were growing at
less than 2 percent. And that has really pared back demand in a
lot of areas of the world.
Second, we have had several successive years of very good
crops around the world, part of it due to technology, but part
of it due to just very good weather. We are on track to have
pretty good weather again this year. I just reviewed all of the
global weather maps, and we have dry weather in western North
Africa, some dry weather in Iran, and I think that is pretty
much it for the major commodities.
So those two factors have helped create a cyclical trough
that we have been in right now. Agriculture does run in cycles,
not predictable ones, but we go up and down, and we are down
right now. And I think you have to take care not to think that
we are going to be down forever.
But, at the same time, there are some surprising structural
changes taking place around the world that are going to be, I
think, promising for some crops and not so promising for
others.
Senator Durbin. May I ask you, if I might, to kind of zero
in on one particular thing? For a long period of time, the
Federal farm policy, among other things, focused on the belief
that if we took certain acreage out of production in the United
States of America, it would have an impact on world price. And
we used that thinking for a long time in terms of the number of
acres you could plant in certain program crops, the
conservation reserve program and the like. Is that premise
still valid in the world today?
Mr. Collins. I think that it is for major field crops. To
give you an example, our share of world wheat trade this past
year was 31-32 percent. Our share of world cotton trade, 25-26
percent. Our share of world corn trade, 70 percent. Our share
of world soybean trade, somewhere about 60 percent. These are
very large percentages of world trade. And if we were to take
acreage out of production, no doubt it would have an effect on
foreign acreage.
Now, some of those shares are not as big as they used to
be. The soybean share is not as big. The wheat share is not as
big. So, to that extent, taking land out of production would
have less of an effect than it would have had in the past, but
it still would have an effect.
Senator Durbin. But are we such a market maker that if we
took the 31 percent of world production in wheat and said, we
are going to set aside 10 percent of the acreage and we are
going to reduce our production by 10 percent, in other words,
reduce 3 percent of the total sales of wheat worldwide, that
would have a price impact sufficient to warrant that plunge on
our part?
Mr. Collins. No, I did not say that. I do not know that it
would have a price impact sufficient to warrant taking that
land out of production, but it would have some price impact. I
still think that we are in a world market where we have lots of
competitors who are price responsive--Argentina and Australia,
with respect to wheat prices. When wheat goes up, we know
Australia will divert land from livestock to wheat, for
example. Brazil and Argentina, with respect to soybeans, we
know that they would like to see higher soybean prices, and
that would accelerate the rate at which they are bringing new
land into production in Brazil.
So we could take land out of production; I think we could
affect prices, but, over time, the effect would be eroded by
competitor response.
Senator Durbin. Well, I am going to make one last footnote
on this particular aspect and say that I have a special
interest, as many do in the Midwest, about the ethanol program.
I think it has been conceded by you and others that absent a
quick response by the Administration to our concerns about this
ethanol program, we put at risk some 10 cents a bushel in corn
price. So I hope that our friends in the EPA and the White
House could come together on this very quickly.
FOOD ASSISTANCE FOR AFRICA
Mr. Schumacher, it is good to see you. Let me ask you a
specific question based on a trip that I took in January to
Africa. I really went to look at food assistance programs and
microcredit, and ended up spending most of my time looking at
the AIDS epidemic, which is just overwhelming and devastating,
and may be the most moral challenge of our generation.
One of the things I came away with was the belief that, as
overwhelming as it is, there are things that work. And some of
the things that work are food assistance, particularly to those
families willing to bring in AIDS orphans. These are families
that literally are living hand to mouth on a day-to-day basis,
who, because of the extended family custom in Africa, will
bring in the orphans from the households of their brothers and
sisters and relatives and bring them under their roof if they
can do it economically.
The question is answered as to whether they can do it by
basic things, like microcredit programs, which do not relate
directly to your Department, but equally food assistance
programs. I really came away believing that if we did nothing
else but try to strengthen the existing African families so
that they can bring in these orphans and find a home for them
and keep them off the street, it may have more tangible impact
on this epidemic than many other grandiose plans.
In the nation of Uganda, which is viewed as the most
successful nation in Africa in dealing with the AIDS epidemic,
they have reduced the infection of pregnant women from 30
percent just 10 years ago to 15 percent. That is an amazing
thing to occur in a very small country. And yet, in this nation
of 17 million people, there are 1.7 million orphans today.
What I am hoping to do is to work with you and the
Department to talk about food assistance programs directed
toward Africa and other countries facing this epidemic in the
hopes that we can strengthen these families and keep the kids
off the street and the girls out of prostitution. But when I
look at the Administration's budget when it comes to Public Law
480, for example, or the 416(b) donations, we are moving in the
opposite direction.
At a time when we have more stock on hand, it appears that
we are cutting back in the food assistance that we want to
provide in the world in the donations that might come out of
food sales in countries in Asia and Africa. So I would like to
ask you, can you tell me what the Administration's commitment
is in these two areas and whether you think there is a
receptive attitude toward some of the suggestions I have made?
Mr. Schumacher. I think you have two questions. I had not
really thought about that first question, and certainly it is
something I will go back and discuss with my staff. Because if
you look at what happened about a year ago in Kosovo, when the
Kosovars were being driven out by the Milosevic government,
refugee camps were set up, but many Albanian families took in
their cousins from Kosovo and fed them.
What we tried to do with our food aid is to provide food
for the host families, which I think is what you would like to
counsel us to do in Africa, as well, to have some kind of
programs where people take in AIDS orphans and would get some
relief funds, food, and also provide some microcredit to help
them move along. I think it is an excellent idea and I am going
to explore that with my staff later on.
On the level of food aid overall, we did 9 million tons
last year, feeding 40 million people in nearly 60 countries.
This year we have announced another 3 million tons, and we are
going to push very, very hard. If there are additional needs
due, for example, to the floods in Mozambique or difficulties
in Ethiopia, certainly we will consider those on their merits.
Senator Durbin. Well, let me be specific with you. When it
comes to the U.S. action plan on food security, a 17-percent
decline in the Administration's request in funding for that
program. That worries me.
Similar to that decline, the 416(b) donation program seems
to be in decline. Yet the most recent food security assessment
report indicates an increase in the current food gap over the
previous year's report, from almost 11 million tons to 12.7
million tons. So we would be giving less assistance in food to
the World Food Program, the largest food program on the earth,
at a time when the demand is growing in Africa, as well as
other countries, Africa in particular, presents a great
challenge to us as to whether we will respond to this AIDS
crisis.
So my question to you is, why are we gearing down in these
programs at a time when it appears the world need is gearing
up?
Mr. Schumacher. Well, I think we are in fact increasing our
416(b) over last year, and we have pushed hard this year to get
the 3 million tons. We had some carryover funding available for
Public Law 480 this year. Because we used so much 416(b) last
year, we did not use as much Public Law 480. And I think that
is why the request for new budget authority was a little less
this year, because of the carryover we had from unused Public
Law 480 that we are going to be using this year.
Senator Durbin. Thank you. And I hope to work with you, as
I have in the past, on this, particularly as it relates to this
AIDS epidemic.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the hearing and for
all your cooperation. Just last week, Senator Frist had a
hearing in the Foreign Operations Committee, on the African
Subcommittee, about this AIDS epidemic. And it is our belief
that we have an opportunity this year, on a bipartisan basis,
to try to address this terrible crisis. And I hope that in the
course of this appropriation bill we can as well.
Mr. Schumacher. Tim Galvin, Administrator of the Foreign
Agricultural Service, was indicating that last year we did
quite a lot of food aid, the highest in 25 years. And our
budget reflects not only the fact that we have the carryover
this year in Public Law 480, but also that we donated 500,000
tons of food to Russia last year, and we do not have that big
Russian donation this year. I think on our day-to-day work,
especially in Africa, in really vulnerable countries, we have
been pretty aggressive. But if you feel that we need to do more
in certain areas, I will come to visit with you on that.
Senator Durbin. I learned a lot on my trip, Mr. Chairman. I
learned, in Africa, that we are shipping a lot of vegetable
oil, which is being sold locally and used for development.
Their biggest complaint is we are shipping it in a can and they
wanted it in durable plastic containers. So I told them, if I
do nothing else as a United States Senator from Illinois, I am
going to work on changing that container. And so, maybe as part
of this hearing, we can get into that as well. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Senator. I appreciate
your participation in the hearing and your work of this
subcommittee.
Mr. Schumacher, you really did not have a chance to make a
statement before we started asking you questions. I will yield
to you now for any comments or statements that you would like
to make as a part of your testimony to the committee.
STATEMENT OF AUGUST SCHUMACHER
Mr. Schumacher. I do have a prepared statement I hope we
can put in the record.
Senator Cochran. It will be.
Mr. Schumacher. But if I may I would like to make a very
short statement, because there are many questions I would like
to answer. First of all, I have my three administrators here
who are going to counsel me when I make mistakes or, with your
permission, come to the table, and also Mr. Fritz, our General
Sales Manager, who has really worked very, very hard on this
food aid issue. It has not been easy, but we have managed to
ship an enormous tonnage to many, many countries and have had a
major benefit.
For example, I was down in the Dominican Republic over the
weekend and looked at the impact of the 100,000 tons of wheat
that we donated, and how that had affected that country, and
the enormous number of small projects that we have done,
including even starting some very small markets that are
benefitting producers. So when you see the results actually on
the ground, it is quite extraordinary what is occurring with
the counterpart monies of this food aid.
As Mr. Collins has indicated, things do not look great for
this coming year in agriculture, and it was brought home to me
in a number of areas. Mr. Gorton mentioned my trip to
Washington State last year. With all due respect to Senator
Gorton, that was not a political trip. I was invited out
because the apple industry was in such trauma. They have the
lowest prices in many, many years. Growers were going out of
business. They were desperate. There were 270 growers of all
sizes that came, and we talked and we listened. The result of
that is, working together, we developed an apple action plan,
and we are putting a lot of things together to help the apple
industry.
In my own home State of Massachusetts, I met yesterday with
some of the cranberry growers. Usually we call cranberry income
the Massachusetts mortgage lifter, but prices have plummeted
from $80 a few years ago to, they said yesterday, $20. Those
producers are in desperate straits.
Governor Bush of Florida was in to see the Secretary and me
on Sunday at the Governors Conference and was mentioning the
crisis in his citrus industry, not only with citrus canker but
some of the low prices that I think, Keith, you mentioned in
your testimony. So beyond just the major commodities, we are
seeing low prices in almonds, apples, oranges and, in
California, some very great difficulties as well, so this poor
price outlook is extending except in livestock.
We have a chart here where you can see that total CCC
outlays, which we are predicting to be $27 billion this year,
are higher than the previous peak. Total CCC outlays, in
unadjusted numbers, were $25.8 billion in 1996 and $19 billion
in 1999.
What we have done, as you have indicated, is put on the
table a proposal in four parts to take us through the end of
the 1996 farm bill, building on it and adding to it where we
think it really is needed. What we propose, Mr. Chairman, is an
$11 billion package, offset and on budget. Let me go through
the four parts, and then Keith and I can answer questions on
those. First, as Mr. Dorgan has indicated, we need to build on
the basic AMTA payments with a countercyclical income
assistance program. Our proposal calls for payments if the
projected gross income for major commodities falls below 92
percent of its 5-year average. Payments would be made in
addition to, not in lieu of, the production flexibility
contract payments. We propose, and it is controversial,
combined supplemental payment limitations of $30,000.
It does not address the issues that Senator Gorton raised,
of how to assist other commodities, for example, his hard-
pressed apple industry. We can discuss that here or elsewhere
as well.
These payments, in contrast to the AMTA, will be
countercyclical, as I mentioned, rising when farm incomes fall
and falling when farm incomes rise. They would also be crop
specific, and they would be based on actual production rather
than some historical base, so that only producers actually
producing the crop would be eligible for the payments. As I
have travelled around the country I have picked up some
criticism from farmers, who say that some folks who live in the
apartments in Chicago were getting payments when perhaps the
farmers were not. There has been a bit of controversy in some
of the areas there. So that is one of our proposals:
countercyclical income support.
The second part of our proposal is improving crop
insurance. We understand the Senate Agriculture Committee is
beginning to mark up a crop insurance reform bill, and we
certainly commend that. We have noted that farmers responded
very favorably to the subsidy of buy-up coverage last year and
the year before. We want to build on that success, and the
budget proposes to extend the buy-up discount, thus encouraging
farmers to become steady customers, and to provide multi-year
coverage just like any other business.
We are also proposing a pilot livestock insurance program.
And for those crops that do not have crop insurance, the budget
proposes removal of the NAP area trigger, which will be
particularly welcome I think in California and some of the
eastern parts of the country, and maybe even the South, where
you have crops that are not insured.
This will help those farmers that are hit by hailstorm or
an isolated freeze get support. The yellow sticker is to remind
me to talk about the Non-insured Assistance Program. At my age,
I sometimes forget to do that. We have a very major issue on
crop insurance. The budget provides a total of $1.3 billion
through fiscal year 2002 for these reforms.
The third part of our proposal is on conservation. And this
we think is also a very important part. Senator Durbin inquired
about set-asides. What we are proposing here is sound land
management.
I think the heart of our conservation proposal is the $600
million Conservation Security Program, which could help all
farmers, because all farmers would be eligible to receive it.
If, for example, a cranberry grower, an apple grower or a
soybean grower undertook good conservation practices by
reducing chemicals or reducing runoff, they would be entitled
to a payment regardless of where they farmed. The program would
be available to all farmers. We are working out the details
with NRCS. I think this is an important issue and we would like
to discuss it further if you wish.
And then, finally, the fourth part of our proposal is
getting trade back on track. One of the things we call for, and
we have called for it a couple of years in a row, is the
authority from Congress to use the unobligated balances of the
Export Enhancement Program to promote our exports overseas.
One of our problems, and we will come to this in a minute,
is staffing. Senator Gorton has raised the issue of Singapore.
We have some major staffing problems in our mission area. And
we are not able to do the kind of work we were doing a couple
of years ago when I was before you. This is the seventh year I
have been before you in different capacities. So we would like
to use the unexpended funds. For example, when China comes into
the WTO, we will need to ratchet up our trade promotion work in
China and, Senator, ratchet up more food aid. We would like to
use those unexpended balances for food aid or trade promotion,
to move products overseas.
We also have in the budget some proposals to enhance
marketing flexibility. We have asked for $130 million over 2
years to help cooperatives develop livestock processing
facilities. We will be announcing fairly shortly the program
under CCC for construction of on-farm grain storage. This is
going to be very important as more and more marketeers would
like specialty kinds of grains, and we want those farmers to
have access to storage to provide for those specialty grains.
And we are launching a new program to encourage production of
bio-based energy.
Let me focus for just 1 or 2 minutes more, with your
permission, on the staffing issue, Mr. Chairman. We are in
trouble on staffing. If you look at the graph in front of you--
it is kind of a busy graph--but you can see that in 1998, 1999,
and 2000, as our CCC outlays have gone up, our staffing has
gone down a bit. And we really are working very hard. We
proposed some staffing initiatives here. We are proposing not
to lay off any permanent staff. FSA has been using temporary
staff, but we are under tremendous pressure. We had to absorb,
for example, and I think quite rightly to absorb, the staffing
for the consent agreement implementation. That is $13 million
to $15 million.
We are very concerned about staffing in the Foreign
Agricultural Service, where we have been down $5 million over
the last couple of years. We have asked for increases. We have
not received them. And we really need to work with you to see
if we can get the Foreign Agricultural Service back on track to
get exports back up again.
For the Risk Management Agency, we are having some
difficulties with staffing, because their liabilities have gone
up quite a bit and the staffing has been basically straight-
lined. Again, in the Farm Service Agency, the county employees
are working overtime night after night after night to service
the kind of demands that we are putting on them to implement
the 22 new programs that Congress gave us last year. So we have
a lot of work to do in the staffing area, and my gency
Administrators are here to answer any of your questions on
staffing issues that you may want to ask us.
Finally, we very much appreciated your help last year on
the critical funding authority for CCC for the current
appropriation for net realized losses. We thank you for giving
us this authority. It was very, very important. I also want to
particularly thank you and the committee for recognizing the
strain that the workload has placed on our agencies and
providing the additional resources last year to the Farm
Service Agency for delivering those programs. We have been
overtaken by events in all three mission areas. And in addition
to those staffing resources, we are asking for a little bit
more in this budget in certain key areas.
So, to summarize, we focused on proposals for
countercyclical assistance, trade, conservation, and crop
insurance, and also some of the difficult management issues we
have had in delivering 22 new programs in addition to
administering the loan deficiency payments and related programs
that have gotten farmers through and provided the kind of
income support to stabilize agriculture through these very
difficult times that Mr. Collins has described.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I appreciate being before you today, sir, and look forward
to taking your questions.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF AUGUST SCHUMACHER, JR.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to appear before you and
members of the Subcommittee to talk about the Administration's budget
proposals which assist farmers and ranchers. I would like to thank my
colleague Keith Collins for his opening statement. I have with me today
Keith Kelly, Administrator of the Farm Service Agency, Ken Ackerman,
Administrator for the Risk Management Agency, Tim Galvin, the
Administrator of the Foreign Agricultural Service, and Richard Fritz,
the Department's General Sales Manager.
As Keith Collins indicated, and as you are all aware, this will be
yet another challenging year for America's family farmers.
Last year, U.S. farmers experienced the lowest wheat prices in 8
years; the lowest corn prices in more than a decade; the lowest soybean
prices in 27 years; the lowest hog prices since the Great Depression;
and the steepest decline in milk prices in history. Even cranberries,
which are known in my home State as the Massachusetts mortgage lifter,
have plunged from $65.90 a barrel in 1996, to $38.80 a barrel in 1998--
down some 37 percent.
And, to make matters even worse, Mother Nature has added to
farmers' problems with continuing bad weather in broad areas of the
country, including hurricanes, tornadoes, and the recent drought that
plagued virtually the entire East Coast.
This situation has put USDA and its support programs in the
spotlight. As you are aware, domestic farm commodity loan and income
support programs are administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and
financed through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), a government
entity for which FSA, as well as certain other agencies, provides
operating personnel. The CCC is also the source of funding for the
Conservation Reserve Program (administered by FSA) as well as many of
the conservation programs administered by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), and it funds many of the export programs
administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). When called
upon, CCC also finances various disaster assistance programs authorized
by Congress. Funds are borrowed by the Corporation from the Treasury to
finance CCC programs. Commodity support operations, handled primarily
through loans, payment programs and some limited purchase programs,
currently include those for wheat, corn, soybeans, minor oilseed crops,
cotton (upland and extra long staple), rice, tobacco, milk and milk
products, barley, oats, sorghum, peanuts and sugar.
Fiscal year 1999 CCC net outlays totaled over $19 billion, and net
outlays in 2000 are expected to reach an all-time high of $27 billion.
The historical CCC outlay trend is shown on the following graph:
When you look at these trends, they are particularly ironic,
especially given that the thrust of the provisions of the 1996 Farm
Bill was aimed at distancing government from providing disaster
assistance. In an effort to address a looming farm crisis, Congress has
had to provide ad-hoc assistance, time and again.
But why is the farm economy in crisis? Can you lay all the blame on
the Federal Agriculture Improvement Act and Reform of 1996? No, in
large part, the crisis is being fueled by 4 consecutive years of record
global grain production and weak export demand--both of which are
beyond the scope of the 1996 Act. U.S. agricultural exports are
projected to be only $49.5 billion this fiscal year after reaching a
record high of nearly $60 billion in fiscal year 1996. Large global
production, the Asian and Russian economic crises, and a strengthening
dollar, have all contributed to a weakening in our exports.
The more appropriate question is: Is the 1996 Act doing what farm
policy should to help deal with the problem and help with the recovery?
Clearly the answer to that question is no.
PRESIDENT'S 2001 BUDGET PROPOSALS FOR AMERICAN AGRICULTURE
Last month, in his State of the Union Address, the President made
clear his commitment to this country's farmers. The President said ``We
must work together to strengthen the farm safety net, invest in land
conservation, and create new markets by expanding our program for bio-
based fuels and products.'' This Administration has put forward a set
of proposals that will address the shortcomings of the 1996 Act
directly.
Let me be clear today, the President's proposal reaffirms that
Government farm policy cannot simply keep lurching from one expensive
bailout to another. Ad-hoc assistance is expensive; it's inefficient;
it's hard on our farmers; its hard on our over-worked USDA staff; and
it's hard on the taxpayers. It is time to move beyond annual ``damage
control,'' and to a stable policy that helps farmers prepare for
disasters and price downturns, invest in long-term market development
and export promotion programs, and gives them the tools they need to
thrive--not just survive.
This set of proposals will focus the spotlight on our mission
area--Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services. The Farm Service Agency,
Risk Management Agency, and the Foreign Agricultural Service will have
the lead in administering the President's package.
When I've spoken with various farm groups, I've likened this
proposal to the solid kitchen chairs that my family used to have at the
farm house, with four firm legs and a well-built back.
--The first leg is a counter-cyclical income support for the basic
program crops--which we estimate at approximately $6 billion
over 3 years.
--The second is the reformed and broader risk management/crop
insurance package.
--The third leg is a creative conservation package ($4.8 billion
through 2005) that expands CRP to 40 million acres, provides
for a conservation security reserve investment, and provides
for farmland protection cost sharing.
--Leg four is an expanded trade initiative that aggressively uses all
of our export programs and in addition requests authority to
use any unobligated Export Enhancement Program (EEP) funding
for long-term investment in trade promotion as well as for food
aid.
--Equally important is the back of the chair, which supports the
farmer when the farmer leans back on the back legs of the
chair. This chair back includes proposals for stabilizing the
crucial USDA workforce that has become over-stressed the past 3
years, farm loan programs, a bio-fuels initiative, the freezing
of loan rates, and an extension of the dairy program.
The Administration package has a number of benefits: it is
flexible; it benefits farmers in all regions (of vital importance
following 1999 eastern droughts and floods and California freezes); it
is targeted; it continues to provide planting flexibility; it has
conservation initiatives benefitting all farmers in all regions; it is
on budget and funded within the President's balanced budget that
preserves the Social Security surplus; it is consistent with our trade
commitments; and most importantly, it provides some stability--and a
consistent framework--for a new farm bill in 2002.
Counter-Cyclical Income Support
It seems like a pretty common-sense notion--that those who are
struggling the most deserve the most help. But the AMTA formula that
we've been living by for nearly 4 years, with its fixed payments, has
no such logic. Thanks to AMTA, recent supplementary farm payments
haven't been tied to need, to size, or to current production.
The Administration proposes supplemental income assistance for crop
years 2000 and 2001, to eligible producers of wheat, feed grains, rice,
upland cotton and oilseeds. The payments would be made only if
projected gross income--including other Government payments--from the
crop falls below 92 percent of the preceding 5-year average. These
payments would be crop-specific and would be based on actual production
rather than some historical base. The proposed program will provide
payments only to current producers of those crops with low prices and
income. It is estimated that $600 million in assistance will be
provided in fiscal year 2000, $2.5 billion in fiscal year 2001 and $2.5
billion in fiscal year 2002.
Still, we're not looking to replace AMTA with our plan. We are
letting the basic principles of the FAIR Act live on through the life
of the bill. The new income assistance will come on top of--not in
place of--AMTA payments and other 1996 Farm Bill payments. AMTA
participants would continue to receive their full payments, and 98
percent of them would also be eligible for an additional check under
this proposal. However, we believe this counter-cyclical method of
income assistance should form the basis for how the next farm bill
proposal should be structured.
Crop Insurance Reform
Even with such improvements in our farm programs, we know that we
will continue to need strong risk management programs. That brings me
to our efforts to reform our crop insurance programs. Crop insurance is
and will continue to be USDA's primary means of helping farmers survive
major production losses. In 1999, American farmers purchased some 1.3
million crop insurance policies covering 196 million acres. Liability
coverage rose from just $14 billion in 1994 to more than $30 billion in
1999, with indemnity payout in 1999 at $2.2 billion.
Past reform of the crop insurance program was made in the context
of an agricultural program that no longer exists. Plunging prices, the
effects of multiple years of crop losses, and under-insured farmers
have prompted us to develop an aggressive crop insurance reform
proposal.
While crop insurance hasn't been the panacea for all our producers'
problems, there is a certain irony about the crop insurance program:
When people say the system is broken, what they mean is there isn't
enough crop insurance coverage.
Today's crop insurance program was designed to work in tandem with
our farm programs. We need a program with sturdy underpinnings, solid,
steady, reliable legs, that can withstand price and weather volatility.
We need a strengthened crop insurance program, a program that
provides premium discounts, a strong risk management education effort,
new product development, assists livestock producers, provides multi-
year loss coverage, and lifts the Non-insured Assistance Program (NAP)
area trigger. I understand the Senate Agriculture Committee will
conduct markup on risk management in early March 2000, with the House
of Representatives having already passed its version on voice vote in
1999. Some Senators favor a direct payment approach, while others like
the alternative of enhanced coverage for all producers. Crop insurance
has become a hot political item. There are high expectations that
cannot be met by current resources.
The Administration also proposes to modify the Non-insured
Assistance Program area-wide trigger requirement, so that producers
with individual qualifying losses in areas that have been designated
for natural disasters are able to receive program assistance. This
change will provide an additional $110 million of assistance in fiscal
years 2000 and 2001.
Conservation Initiatives
The Administration believes that any reform initiatives should
promote conservation. The 2001 President's Budget seeks an additional
$1.3 billion in budget authority for a Conservation Programs
Initiative. This is a key component of the Administration's Farm Safety
Net Proposal to strengthen farm family income while promoting
environmentally sound land management. Within the $1.3 billion,
increases are provided for five ongoing CCC-funded conservation
programs: the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP); Wetlands
Reserve Program (WRP); the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP); Farmland
Protection Program (FPP) and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
(WHIP). Under current law, an additional $125 million in bonuses will
also be offered to producers who enroll in CRP through the continuous
signup.
For EQIP, part of the President's Clean Water Action Plan, the
annual authorized funding level would be increased from $200 million to
$325 million. This program provides financial, technical, and
educational assistance to farmers and ranchers who wish to implement
conservation practices for land currently in production.
Under WRP, which offers technical and financial assistance to
farmers who wish to restore and protect agricultural wetlands, the
initiative would remove the current cumulative acreage cap of 975,000
acres and enroll an additional 210,000 acres in 2001, and an additional
250,000 acres in each subsequent year.
The Conservation Reserve Program provides farmers with technical
and financial assistance in exchange for removing environmentally
sensitive land from production for a 10-15 year period and implementing
conservation practices. The CRP currently allows for up to 36.4 million
acres to be enrolled. The President's Initiative would increase the
enrollment cap by another 3.6 million acres to 40 million. Bonuses
totaling up to $100 million in 2000 and up to $125 million each year in
2001 and 2002 would also be offered to producers who enroll land in CRP
through continuous signup. These bonuses are expected to encourage
enrollment of high environmental-value acreage, and are included in the
CCC baseline. Legislation is also being proposed to provide $75 million
in additional technical assistance funding for the CRP and WRP for
2001.
CRP is USDA's largest environmental program. The purpose of CRP,
administered by FSA, is to cost-effectively assist farm owners and
operators in conserving and improving soil, water, air, and wildlife
resources by converting highly erodible and other environmentally
sensitive acreage normally devoted to the production of agricultural
commodities to a long-term resource-conserving cover. CRP participants
enroll contracts for periods from 10 to 15 years in exchange for annual
rental payments and cost-share and technical assistance for installing
approved conservation practices. CRP acreage also contributes to the
USDA Conservation Buffer Initiative, the Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program, and the Administration's Clean Water Action Plan,
which are estimated to enroll 4.2 million acres through 2002. Also, in
rules adopted after the 1996 Act, USDA reinstated the eligibility of
certain cropped wetlands.
In 1999, a general CRP signup was held (signup 18) from October 26,
1998, through December 11, 1998. Of the 7.1 million acres offered, a
total of 5 million acres were approved for enrollment beginning in
2000. The national average annual rental payment for this acreage is
estimated to be about $46 per acre. Technical assistance for this
signup was funded with unobligated appropriated funds and authorized
CCC funds. Rental payments for signup 18 begin in 2001.
Another general CRP signup began on January 18, 2000, and continued
through February 11, 2000. We are in the process of collecting bid data
from our field offices, and expect to make final enrollment decisions
and offers in April.
In 2000, CCC made payments of approximately $1.450 billion for
rental costs and will make payments of about $124 million for sharing
the cost of permanent cover on replacement acres. For 2001, the Budget
projects CCC program costs of approximately $1.690 billion, consisting
of $1.567 billion for rental payments on previously enrolled and
extended acres and $123 million for cost-share assistance for permanent
cover on enrolled acres. Rental payments for 2001 are not affected by
the 20th signup which just concluded, since rental payments are not due
until 2002.
The Initiative proposes a new $600 million Conservation Security
Program (CSP), which would provide annual payments to farmers and
ranchers who implement certain conservation practices including
practices related to such matters as nutrient management, grazing,
grassed waterways and windbreaks. Payments would be based on the
comprehensiveness of the farm's conservation plan. Of the $600 million,
$90 million (15 percent of the program) will be used by the NRCS to
provide necessary technical assistance to farmers and ranchers.
Funding provided by the 1996 Farm Bill for both the FPP and the
WHIP has been exhausted. Under the conservation initiative, the FPP,
which is also part of the President's Lands Legacy Initiative, would be
funded at $65 million annually. This program provides matching funds to
State, local, and Tribal governments to purchase permanent easements
and thereby protect farmland which may otherwise be threatened by urban
and suburban sprawl. The initiative also proposes $50 million annually
for WHIP, which offers cost-share assistance to farmers and landowners
for habitat restoration and technical assistance.
Successes in Food Aid, and Export Promotion
The last leg of our chair will be provided by our initiatives in
food aid and export promotion.
With domestic supplies high, one can only imagine how much worse
the situation would be if we had not continued the vigorous use of our
long-standing food aid programs. With large surpluses and rock-bottom
prices here at home, we have actively used food aid to move commodities
out of the U.S. marketplace to needy areas around the world. Under 1999
food aid programs, including the President's Wheat Initiative, USDA
programmed nearly 8 million metric tons of U.S. commodities--close to
five times the previous year's shipments and the largest tonnage in
many, many years.
American commodities went to around 50 countries last year--from
the unprecedented assistance package for Russia to food relief for
Kosovo refugees, famine victims in North Korea, and hurricane victims
in Central America and the Caribbean. Under the authority of Section
416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, CCC donated nearly
$800 million worth of commodities, including 5.2 million tons of wheat
and wheat products, 274,000 tons of corn, and about 23,000 tons of dry
milk. These U.S. surpluses were taken off the market and put to good
use, helping to relieve hunger and suffering abroad.
Our export credit guarantee programs facilitated sales of more than
$3 billion in U.S. agricultural products. Our GSM-102 program helped
U.S. exporters overcome disadvantages in Turkey, and make record sales
of over $1.2 billion in Mexico. The program helped U.S. oilseed
exporters sell more than $19 million worth of oilseeds to Uzbekistan,
traditionally a buyer of South American oilseeds. Our GSM-103 program
helped U.S. exporters sell over $14 million worth of wheat to Jordan.
The Supplier Credit Guarantee Program was used for the first time by
importers in the Baltic Region, Georgia, and Turkey, resulting in sales
of nearly $1 million worth of meat products to buyers in the Baltic
Region, and nearly $3 million worth of poultry products and other
products to buyers in Georgia and Turkey.
With the aid of the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP), U.S.
exporters sold more than 136,000 tons of dairy products valued at $337
million. USDA awarded more than $145 million in bonuses to help U.S.
dairy exporters meet prevailing world prices and develop foreign
markets.
The Export Enhancement Program was used only sparingly in 1999
because of market conditions, with bonuses of about $1.4 million
awarded for sales of more than 2,000 tons of frozen poultry.
We continue to stress the importance of market development. In
1999, we allocated $90 million to 65 U.S. trade organizations, State
regional groups, and cooperatives for export promotion activities under
the Market Access Program (MAP), and approved allocations of $27.5
million for 26 trade organizations under the Foreign Market Development
(FMD) program.
And, through the Cochran Fellowship Program, USDA introduced nearly
800 participants from 70 emerging markets to U.S. products and policies
in 1999, and plans to meet and exceed that record this year.
TRADE POLICY INITIATIVES
On the trade policy front, USDA worked successfully to open,
expand, and maintain markets for U.S. agriculture. For example, last
April, the United States and China signed the Agreement on U.S.-China
Agricultural Cooperation, an unprecedented step in U.S.-China
agricultural trade relations. With this agreement, China finally
removes the longstanding bans on exports of U.S. wheat, citrus, and
meat and poultry to China, and calls for China's commitment to the
application of sound science, a key principle of the Uruguay Round
Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement. The agreement confirms a
U.S.-China agricultural partnership in achieving some key objectives:
resolving trade barriers, increasing technical cooperation and
scientific exchanges and further developing our agricultural sectors.
In addition, we negotiated an agreement with China regarding its
membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO). Implementing that
agreement could add an estimated $1.6 billion annually to U.S. exports
of grains, oilseeds and products, and cotton by 2005, and could grow to
nearly $2 billion as the Chinese reduce their tariffs on other
products. These gains will mean higher prices for farmers and,
ultimately, higher U.S. farm income. Of course, the first step toward
realizing these gains would be Congressional approval of permanent
Normal Trade Relationship status for China.
USDA continues to monitor aggressively foreign countries'
compliance with Uruguay Round Agreement commitments. For example, a WTO
dispute settlement panel is examining Korea's import and domestic
support programs for beef. As a result of Korea's failure to meet
minimum import quotas under its Uruguay Round commitment in 1997 and
1998, it became clear that numerous market access barriers exist, and
threaten to inhibit full market liberalization. We will continue to
insist on compliance in this and all cases where access to U.S.
agriculture is at stake.
For example, at 1999 meetings of the Committee on Agriculture, USDA
analysts reviewed and raised questions on over 250 WTO notifications.
The value of trade addressed through U.S. vigilance of commitments is
over $500 million. This was achieved through questioning member's
domestic grain purchasing policies that appeared to violate export
subsidy commitments; challenging the discriminatory issuance of import
licenses for dairy products, pork and poultry; questioning the WTO-
inconsistent execution of a preferential trade arrangement that harmed
U.S. apple exports; and questioning low tariff rate quota (TRQ)
application for a range of commodities. These efforts contributed to
several members halting implementation of or modifying WTO inconsistent
practices.
Exports have played, and will continue to play, a key role in the
health of our farm economy, and we intend to step up our efforts in the
near future, ensuring that U.S. agriculture is competitive around the
globe.
``The Chair Back''
Mr. Chairman, meeting sharply growing workload demands within
existing resources is having a profound affect on the working
environment in my mission area. FSA is implementing over 20 new or
additional emergency related programs that were enacted by Congress
this year--more than twice the number of such programs it had to
deliver in 1999. Unbudgeted costs associated with the Consent Decree--
which came out of the lawsuit filed by African-American farmers against
USDA--have also added to FSA's administrative expenses and workload in
2000. Similarly, the Risk Management Agency has been undertaking new
initiatives to strengthen our risk management services for producers.
In the case of the Foreign Agricultural Service, its workload has
increased dramatically as a result of record levels of food assistance
we are providing. The Agency also is deeply immersed in a number of
critical trade policy matters, including the accession of China to the
WTO, the new round of multilateral trade negotiations, as well as trade
issues related to biotechnology and food safety.
I point out these workload concerns in order to stress the
importance of working with you and the committee to ensure that
adequate resources are made available to these agencies. It is vitally
important that the work of the FFAS mission area, which is critical to
the future of American agriculture, can continue.
I would like to review with you some of our projected outlays, so
that you can fully appreciate the magnitude of the workload.
CCC PROGRAM OUTLAYS
The current 2001 budget estimates largely reflect estimated supply
and demand conditions for the 2000 crop based on November data.
Commodity Credit Corporation net expenditures for 2001, including
proposed ``Safety Net'' legislation outlays of $3.6 billion, are
estimated at $19.0 billion, down $8.7 billion from a record high
expenditure level of $27.7 billion--including $700 million in proposed
legislation outlays--in 2000. The previous record CCC expenditure level
occurred in 1986, when net outlays were $25.8 billion.
The net decrease of $8.7 billion in projected 2001 CCC expenditures
reflects decreases which include the ending of the $5.8 billion of 2000
market loss assistance payments, the ending of $1.3 billion in 2000
crop loss assistance, the ending in $210 million of 2000 emergency
livestock assistance, a decrease in production flexibility payments of
$992 million, a decrease in commodity net lending of $595 million, a
projected decrease in of $848 million in loan deficiency payments from
the huge levels of 2000, a decrease of $130 million in Section 416(b)
ocean transportation expenses, a decrease in other direct producer
payments and expenditures of $369 million.
Other Initiatives
FUND COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
Total funding proposed for cooperative development for new
livestock and other processing cooperatives includes $80 million in
2001 and $50 million in 2002. These funds would be used to provide
equity capital for new livestock and other cooperatives to help
finance, for example, the construction of cooperative-owned, value-
added, meat processing facilities that would help counter concentration
and retain income in rural areas.
EXTEND THE DAIRY PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM
The Administration also proposes the extension of the dairy price
support program. Current appropriations language extended the dairy
price support to December 1, 2000; however, this proposal further
extends the dairy price support program to December 2002. Under this
proposal, $150 million is estimated to be needed to support dairy
prices in each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002.
CCC AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING CAP
In April 1996, a cap of $275 million for CCC-funded automated data
processing (ADP) obligations for 1997 through 2002 was mandated by the
1996 Act. Subsequently, the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 reduced the CCC ADP cap to $193 million.
Finally, the Fiscal Year 1999 Agriculture Appropriations Act (Public
Law 105-277) again reduced the CCC ADP cap to $188 million. As last
year, legislation is again proposed to provide annual funding of $35
million in 2001 and 2002 for Farm Service Agency computer systems to
ensure essential system availability and continued ADP services in
headquarters and field offices at bare minimum levels. This funding is
critical because such expenditures were formerly made using the CCC's
general funds subject to the mandated ADP limit. The funds available
under that limit were depleted in early fiscal year 2000. Without
further new funding, Mr. Chairman, it will be virtually impossible for
FSA to adequately respond to the thrust of Service Center modernization
or to ensure the continuity of uninterrupted program delivery.
REIMBURSEMENT FOR REALIZED LOSSES
Mr. Chairman, the 1999 appropriation for reimbursement of CCC net
realized losses was $8.4 billion. This appropriation reflected
reimbursement for net realized losses which covered the actual amount
of unreimbursed losses incurred 2 years earlier.
The 2000 appropriation for reimbursement of net realized losses was
$30.037 billion, an increase of $21.637 billion from the 1999
appropriation of $8.4 billion. The appropriation reimbursed CCC for the
remaining unreimbursed net realized losses for 1997 and 1998, and all
of 1999 actual losses. The appropriation to reimburse the Corporation
for net realized losses enacted by Congress for 2000 was a current,
indefinite appropriation. This provided CCC with the flexibility to
request funds as needed from Treasury, up to actual losses recorded for
the most recent actual year. Without this current, indefinite
appropriation, CCC would have been unable to fully replenish its
borrowing authority at the beginning of 2000, and timely assistance to
farmers would have been jeopardized due to insufficient borrowing
authority. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your help in providing that
critical funding authority.
The 2001 budget reflects a request to once again enact
appropriation language to eliminate the requirement that only allows
reimbursement for actual realized losses recorded in CCC books as of
the end of the preceding year. Our request is that you provide a
current, indefinite appropriation to reimburse the Corporation for all
actual net realized losses, even if incurred in the current fiscal
year.
FARM LOAN PROGRAMS
The loan programs funded through the Agricultural Credit Insurance
Fund (ACIF) provide a variety of loans and loan guarantees to farm
families who would otherwise be unable to obtain credit. In times of
economic stress, access to adequate farm credit is often the only way
for some farmers to continue their operations.
As a result of the continuing financial hardship in much of the
agricultural sector, the demand for Farm Service Agency loans and loan
guarantees remains very high in 2000. However, the 2000 subsidy funding
provides loan levels totaling a record $5.8 billion that are expected
to meet the strong demand including $2.5 billion through emergency
funds. The 2001 budget likewise responds to an anticipated high demand
by providing a total program level of about $4.6 billion in loans and
guarantees, an increase of $1.6 billion excluding emergency funds The
largest segment of FSA lending is carried out in partnership with
private lenders through the guarantee programs, and this budget
continues strong support for guaranteed loans, with a proposed program
level of nearly $3.5 billion.
For direct farm ownership loans we are requesting a loan level of
$128 million, a decrease of $22 million from the 2000 appropriated
level (including supplemental funding). The proposed program level
would enable FSA to extend credit to about 1,250 small and beginning
farmers to purchase or maintain a family farm, about 500 fewer than
estimated for the current fiscal year. The agency has established
annual county-by-county participation targets for members of socially
disadvantaged groups, based on demographic data. Also, 70 percent of
direct farm ownership loans are reserved for beginning farmers, and
about 35 percent are made at a reduced interest rate to limited
resource borrowers, who may also be beginning farmers. For direct farm
operating loans we are requesting a program level of $700 million, $200
million above the 2000 level, excluding supplemental funding, to
provide over 14,400 loans to family farmers.
For guaranteed farm ownership loans in 2001, we are requesting a
loan level of $1 billion, the same as 2000. This program level will
give over 4,500 farmers the opportunity to either acquire their own
farm or to save an existing one. For guaranteed farm operating loans we
propose a fiscal year 2001 program level of nearly $2.5 billion,
compared to $1.8 billion in 2000 excluding emergency loans. This level
will enable approximately 16,600 producers to finance their farming
operations.
The Budget also proposes $150 million in emergency disaster loans
in fiscal year 2001, sufficient to provide approximately 1,800 low-
interest loans to producers whose farming operations have been damaged
by natural disasters. We are proposing to close the ``eligibility gap''
between USDA and SBA emergency loans, so that in times of natural
disaster, every sized farm and ag businesses have a place to turn to
for emergency assistance. These new loans would be made at higher
interest rates than our currently authorized borrowers. In addition,
our budget proposes just over $2 million for Indian tribe land
acquisition loans and $100 million for boll weevil eradication loans.
STATE MEDIATION GRANTS
Our request of $4 million for State Mediation Grants would assist
States in developing programs to deal with disputes involving a variety
of agricultural issues--distressed farm loans, wetland determinations,
conservation compliance, pesticides, and others. Operated primarily by
State universities or departments of agriculture, the program provides
neutral mediators to assist producers, primarily small farmers, in
resolving disputes before they culminate in litigation or bankruptcy.
Mediation, at about $500 per case, offers significant savings over
national level administrative hearings, which cost about $3,000 to
$4,000 per case in direct costs alone. Authority for State Mediation
Grants expires at the end of 2000. A legislative proposal is being
submitted to reauthorize the program through 2005.
SERVICE CENTERS
Another important part of our effort to deliver services to rural
customers is the initiative to streamline and modernize the field
offices and create Service Centers. While we have physically
established these Centers, we still have much work to do to make the
promise of better service a reality. A key ingredient in providing well
coordinated, quality assistance at USDA Service Centers is the
replacement of separate agency, aging information technology systems
with the common computing environment along with reengineered business
processes. The USDA Budget proposes $75 million for this effort in
appropriated funds under the Office of the Chief Information Officer.
Rural Development will provide additional funding, as necessary, to
support the modernization plan and service center initiative.
Additionally, an important part of the efforts to modernize field
operations is the streamlining of the administrative services for the
Farm Service Agency, Rural Development, and Natural Resources
Conservation Service. By conserving resources in this arena, each
agency will be in a better position to provide greater program support.
We would like to work with you to see that these administrative
services can be consolidated.
CONCLUSION
Over the last 60 years, agriculture has been dramatically
transformed, and yet farm policy has remained relatively stagnant.
People generally do not and cannot farm the way they did in the 1930s
and 40s, so government's role in helping them has to change
accordingly.
The days when every farmer could survive by simply bringing
commodities to market are over. That's why a new farm policy must
change and improve the ways the government provides assistance, and
highlight new and different ways for farmers to make money and capture
a greater share of the consumer dollar. That means promoting future
access to food systems through improved marketing, strong farm
cooperatives, reinforced direct marketing schemes, innovative use of
the Internet, and farmers markets. It means encouraging the use of
crops for energy and bio-based fuels, encouraging the production of
value-added, consumer-ready goods, organics, aquaculture and so on.
Of course, traditional row crop farming will continue to be an
important part of the American agricultural portfolio. And the
government will continue to support the people who grow traditional
crops. But a new century calls for a more holistic approach based on
the understanding that, even if there are fewer farmers, there are more
kinds of farmers living in more places than ever before.
In closing, I am reminded of an event at which Secretary Glickman
was talking about helping farmers through tough times--helping them to
survive, which is a common theme these days. All of a sudden a farmer
in the front row stood up and shouted, ``Hey, I don't want to survive!
I want to thrive!'' We are doing all we can to help American family
farmers reach that goal. As we work to pull our farm economy up from
these tough times, I encourage your input and look forward to an
ongoing dialogue with you.
Thank you.
STAFFING
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much. I think I will ask a
couple of questions right away on the staffing issues that you
raised. You have highlighted the workload demands here with
this last chart in the Farm Service Agency, administering
programs, and also the Foreign Agricultural Service,
administering food aid and trade policy programs. Does the
Administration's budget request provide adequate resources to
deal with these requirements that you have outlined?
Mr. Schumacher. I am going to ask Keith Kelly, with your
permission, to join me on this issue, and Dennis Kaplan to help
as well. With your help last year we basically have been able
to maintain our staffing, and the request this year maintains
the permanent staffing levels. Where we are going to get some
problem is on temporary employees. And I mentioned the issue
that was unexpected, which is the much larger than expected
budgetary requirements for the consent agreement.
Keith, do you want to expand a little bit on some of the
concerns you have on staffing?
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Kelly. Yes, thank you, Senator. With regard to your
question on staffing in the 2001 budget, the budget proposal
before you right now would provide for a reduction of actually
around 622 temporary staff years but leave the permanent
Federal and non-Federal county staffing at the 2000 level. We
are committed to carrying out a timely program. And if service
delays do occur, then we will have to work with you to
readdress this issue. In the past, you have been helpful to us
in providing some relief, such as this year's $56 million
reimbursement from CCC for program delivery. We put that mostly
into the temporary staffing level, to handle the very, very
heavy workload related to this agricultural crisis, to get
those programs out the door.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEITH KELLY
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
present the fiscal year 2001 budget for the Farm Service Agency (FSA).
This budget focuses on a response to the continuing economic hardships
facing much of agriculture. As you know, fiscal year 2000 is setting
new records in two major areas: Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) net
outlays are expected to reach an all-time high of $27.7 billion, and
farm loan programs are providing loans and loan guarantees amounting to
$5.8 billion. While this assistance is enabling most producers to keep
their farming operations afloat, depressed commodity prices are
forecast to continue into fiscal year 2001. In this context, the budget
for fiscal year 2001 emphasizes timely delivery of the programs
currently in place to assist producers through difficult times, and it
offers a number of proposals to strengthen the safety net for those in
the farm sector who are not sharing in the overall prosperity being
enjoyed across the nation.
COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION
Domestic farm commodity price and income support programs are
administered by the Farm Service Agency and financed through the CCC, a
government entity for which FSA provides operating personnel. The CCC
is also the source of funding for the Conservation Reserve Program
administered by FSA as well as many of the conservation programs
administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and
it funds many of the export programs administered by the Foreign
Agricultural Service (FAS). When called upon, CCC also finances various
disaster assistance programs authorized by Congress. The Corporation
borrows funds from the Treasury to finance CCC programs. Commodity
support operations, handled primarily through loans, payment programs
and some limited purchase programs, currently include those for wheat,
corn, soybeans, minor oilseed crops, cotton (upland and extra long
staple), rice, tobacco, milk and milk products, barley, oats, sorghum,
peanuts and sugar.
Program Outlays
The current 2001 budget estimates largely reflect estimated supply
and demand conditions for the 2000 crop based on November data.
Commodity Credit Corporation net expenditures for fiscal year 2001,
including proposed ``Safety Net'' legislation outlays of $3.6 billion,
are estimated at $19.0 billion, down $8.7 billion from a record high
expenditure level of $27.7 billion--including $700 million in proposed
legislation outlays--in fiscal year 2000. The previous record CCC
expenditure level occurred in fiscal year 1986, when net outlays were
$25.8 billion.
The net decrease of $8.7 billion in projected fiscal year 2001 CCC
expenditures reflects the expiration of $5.8 billion of 2000 marketing
loss assistance payments, the expiration of $1.3 billion of 2000 crop
loss assistance, the expiration of $210 million of 2000 emergency
livestock assistance, a decrease in production flexibility payments of
$992 million, a decrease in commodity net lending of $595 million, a
projected decrease of $848 million in loan deficiency payments from the
huge levels of fiscal year 2000, a decrease of $130 million in Section
416 ocean transportation, and a decrease in other direct producer
payments and expenditures of $369 million.
The following ``Safety Net'' legislative proposals are included in
the budget for commodity, conservation, and other CCC-funded programs.
CCC Program Initiatives
Supplemental income assistance is proposed for crop year 2000 and
2001 to eligible producers of wheat, feed grains, rice, upland cotton
and oilseeds. The payments would be made only if projected gross
income, including other Government payments, from the crop falls below
92 percent of the preceding 5-year average. The supplementary payments
would be crop specific and would be based on actual production rather
than some historical base. The proposed program will provide payments
only to current producers of those crops with low prices and income. It
is estimated that $600 million in assistance will be provided in fiscal
year 2000, $2.5 billion in fiscal year 2001 and $2.5 billion in fiscal
year 2002.
Total funding proposed for cooperative development for new
livestock and other processing cooperatives includes $80 million in
fiscal year 2001 and $50 million in fiscal year 2002. The fund would be
used to provide equity capital for new cooperatives and help finance
the construction of cooperative-owned, value-added, processing
facilities needed to counter concentration and retain income in rural
areas. The fund would provide financing and obtain an equity interest
in new processing cooperatives.
The initiatives propose to modify the Non-insured Assistance
Program areawide trigger requirement so that producers with individual
qualifying losses in areas that have been designated as natural
disaster areas are able to receive program assistance. This change will
provide an additional $110 million of assistance in both fiscal year
2000 and 2001.
Extension of the dairy price support program is proposed. Current
appropriations language extended the dairy price support to January 1,
2001; however, this proposal further extends the dairy price support
program to January 2003. Under this proposal, $150 million is estimated
to be spent to support dairy prices for fiscal years 2001 and 2002.
Legislation will also be proposed to enable unused balances in the
Export Enhancement Program during fiscal year 2000 to be transferred to
other USDA export promotion and food aid programs.
In April 1996, a cap of $275 million for CCC-funded automated data
processing (ADP) obligations for fiscal year 1997 through 2002 was
established by the 1996 Act.
Subsequently, the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education
Reform Act of 1998 reduced the CCC ADP cap to $193 million. Finally,
the Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriations Act (Public Law 105-277) again
reduced the CCC ADP cap to $188 million. As it was last year,
legislation is proposed to provide annual funding of $35 million in
fiscal year 2001 and 2002 for Farm Service Agency computer systems to
ensure essential system availability and continued ADP services in
headquarters and field offices at bare minimum levels. This funding is
critical because such expenditures were formerly funded under the
legislated CCC ADP expenditure cap, and the new cap was depleted in
early fiscal year 2000. Without further funding, Mr. Chairman, it will
be virtually impossible for FSA to adequately respond to the thrust of
Service Center modernization or to ensure uninterrupted program
delivery.
Conservation Programs Initiative
The fiscal year 2001 President's Budget seeks an additional $1.1
billion in budget authority for a Conservation Programs Initiative.
This is a key component of the Administration's Farm Safety Net
Proposal to strengthen farm family income while promoting
environmentally sound land management. Within the $1.1 billion,
increases are provided for five ongoing CCC-funded conservation
programs: the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),
the Farmland Protection Program (FFP), and the Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program (WHIP). Also, under current law, an additional $125
million in bonuses will be offered to producers who enroll in CRP
through the continuous signup. The Vice President announced these
proposed conservation program initiatives on January 7. They include
the following:
For EQIP, part of the President's Clean Water Action Plan, the
annual authorized funding level would be increased from $200 million to
$325 million. This program provides financial, technical and
educational assistance to farmers and ranchers who wish to implement
conservation practices for land currently in production.
Under WRP, which offers technical and financial assistance to
farmers who wish to restore and protect agricultural wetlands, the
Initiative would remove the current cumulative acreage cap of 975,000
acres, under which only 40,000 acres remain, and provide for the
enrollment of an additional 210,000 acres in fiscal year 2001 and an
additional 250,000 acres in each subsequent year.
Funding provided by the 1996 Farm Bill for both FPP and WHIP has
been exhausted. Under the Conservation Initiative, the FPP, which is
also part of the President's Lands Legacy Initiative, would be funded
at $65 million annually. This program provides matching funds to State,
local, and Tribal governments to purchase permanent easements and
thereby protect farmland which may otherwise be threatened by urban and
suburban sprawl. The Initiative also proposes $50 million annually for
WHIP, which offers cost-share assistance to farmers and landowners for
habitat restoration and technical assistance.
The CRP provides farmers with technical and financial assistance in
exchange for removing environmentally sensitive land from production
for a 10- to 15-year period and implementing conservation practices.
The CRP currently allows for up to 36.4 million acres to be enrolled.
The President's Initiative would increase the enrollment cap by another
3.6 million acres to 40 million. Bonuses totaling up to $100 million in
fiscal year 2000 and up to $125 million each year in fiscal year 2001
and fiscal year 2002 would also be offered to producers who enroll land
in CRP through continuous signup. These bonuses are expected to
encourage enrollment of high environmental-value acreage, and are
included in the CCC baseline. Legislation is also being proposed to
provide CRP and WRP technical assistance of an additional $75 million
for fiscal year 2001.
The Initiative proposes a new $600 million Conservation Security
Program (CSP), which would provide annual payments to farmers and
ranchers who implement such conservation practices as nutrient
management, grazing, grassed waterways and windbreaks. Of the $600
million, $90 million (15 percent of the program) will be used by the
NRCS to provide necessary technical assistance to farmers and ranchers.
CCC Outlays
Fiscal year 1999 net CCC outlays totaled over $19 billion, and
outlays in fiscal year 2000 are expected to reach an all-time high of
$27 billion. The historical CCC outlay trend is shown on the following
graph.
Emergency Assistance Outlays
The 1999 appropriations bill provided about $5.8 billion in budget
authority to support farmers and rural communities with emergency
assistance. The Fiscal Year 2000 Agriculture Appropriations Act (Public
Law 106-78) and the Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-
113), authorized emergency disaster and market loss assistance to
producers of almost $9.0 billion in budget authority using several
programs.
Reimbursement for Realized Losses
Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 1999 appropriation for reimbursement
of CCC net realized losses was $8.4 billion. This appropriation
reflected reimbursement for net realized losses which covered the
actual amount of unreimbursed losses incurred two years earlier.
The fiscal year 2000 appropriation for reimbursement of net
realized losses was $30.037 billion, an increase of $21.637 billion
from the fiscal year 1999 appropriation of $8.4 billion. The
appropriation reimbursed CCC for the remaining unreimbursed net
realized losses for fiscal years 1997 and 1998, and all of 1999 actual
losses. The appropriation to reimburse the Corporation for net realized
losses enacted by Congress for fiscal year 2000 was a current,
indefinite appropriation. This provided CCC with the flexibility to
request funds as needed from Treasury, up to actual losses recorded for
the most recent actual year. Without this current, indefinite
appropriation, CCC would have been unable to fully replenish its
borrowing authority at the beginning of fiscal year 2000, and timely
assistance to farmers would have been jeopardized due to insufficient
borrowing authority. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your help in providing
that critical funding authority.
The 2001 budget reflects a request to again revise the current
appropriation language to eliminate the requirement that only allows
reimbursement for actual realized losses recorded in CCC books as of
the end of the preceding year. Our request provides a current,
indefinite appropriation to reimburse the Corporation for all actual
net realized losses, even if incurred in the current fiscal year.
Conservation Reserve Program
CRP is USDA's largest conservation/environmental program. The
purpose of CRP, administered by FSA, is to cost-effectively assist farm
owners and operators in conserving and improving soil, water, air, and
wildlife resources by converting highly erodible and other
environmentally sensitive acreage normally devoted to the production of
agricultural commodities to a long-term resource-conserving cover. CRP
participants enroll contracts for periods from 10 to 15 years in
exchange for annual rental payments and cost-share and technical
assistance for installing approved conservation practices. CRP acreage
also contributes to the USDA Conservation Buffer Initiative and the
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, which are part of the
Administration's Clean Water Action Plan and are estimated to enroll
4.2 million acres through 2002. Also, in rules adopted after the 1996
Act, USDA reinstated the eligibility of certain cropped wetlands.
In fiscal year 1999, a general CRP signup (signup 18) was held from
October 26 through December 11, 1998. Of the 7.1 million acres offered,
a total of 5 million acres was approved for enrollment beginning in
fiscal year 2000. The national average annual rental payment for this
acreage is estimated to be about $46 per acre. Technical assistance for
this signup was funded with unobligated appropriated funds and
authorized CCC funds. Rental payments for signup 18 begin in fiscal
year 2001.
Another general CRP signup was held January 18 through February 11,
2000. We are in the process of collecting bid data from our field
offices and expect to make final enrollment decisions and offers in
April.
In fiscal year 2000, CCC made payments of approximately $1.450
billion for rental costs and will make payments of about $124 million
for sharing the cost of permanent cover on replacement acres. For
fiscal year 2001, the Budget projects CCC program costs of
approximately $1.690 billion, consisting of $1.567 billion for rental
payments on previously enrolled and extended acres and $123 million for
cost-share assistance for permanent cover on enrolled acres. Rental
payments for fiscal year 2001 are not affected by the 20th signup which
just concluded, since rental payments are not due until fiscal year
2002.
FARM LOAN PROGRAMS
The loan programs funded through the Agricultural Credit Insurance
Fund (ACIF) provide a variety of loans and loan guarantees to farm
families who would otherwise be unable to obtain credit. In times of
economic stress, access to adequate farm credit is often the only way
for some farmers to continue their operations.
As a result of the continuing financial hardship in much of the
agricultural sector, the demand for FSA loans and loan guarantees
remains very high in fiscal year 2000. However, the record $5.6 billion
loan level that Congress provided for fiscal year 2000 is expected to
meet the strong demand. The 2001 budget likewise responds to an
anticipated high demand by providing a total program level of about
$4.6 billion in loans and guarantees, an increase of $1.5 billion,
excluding emergency funds. The largest segment of FSA lending is
carried out in partnership with private lenders through the guarantee
programs, and this budget continues strong support for guaranteed
loans, with a proposed program level of nearly $3.5 billion.
For direct farm ownership loans we are requesting a loan level of
$128 million, the same as the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level,
excluding supplemental funding. The proposed program level would enable
FSA to extend credit to about 1,250 small and beginning farmers to
purchase or maintain a family farm, about 500 fewer than estimated for
the current fiscal year. The agency has established annual county-by-
county participation targets for members of socially disadvantaged
groups, based on demographic data. Also, 70 percent of direct farm
ownership loans are reserved for beginning farmers, and about 35
percent are made at a reduced interest rate to limited resource
borrowers, who may also be beginning farmers. For direct farm operating
loans we are requesting a program level of $700 million, $200 million
above the 2000 level excluding supplemental funding, to provide over
14,400 loans to family farmers.
For guaranteed farm ownership loans in fiscal year 2001, we are
requesting a loan level of $1 billion, the same as 2000. This program
level will give over 4,500 farmers the opportunity to either acquire
their own farm or to save an existing one. For guaranteed farm
operating loans we propose a fiscal year 2001 program level of nearly
$2.5 billion, compared to $2.9 billion in 2000. This level will enable
approximately 16,600 producers to finance their farming operations.
The Budget also proposes $150 million in emergency disaster loans
in fiscal year 2001, sufficient to provide approximately 1,800 low-
interest loans to producers whose farming operations have been damaged
by natural disasters. We are proposing to close the eligibility gap
between USDA and Small Business Administration emergency loans so that
in times of natural disaster every size farm and ag business has a
place to turn for emergency assistance. In addition, our budget
proposes just over $2 million for Indian tribe land acquisition loans
and $100 million for boll weevil eradication loans.
OTHER APPROPRIATED PROGRAMS
State Mediation Grants
State Mediation Grants assist States in developing programs to deal
with disputes involving a variety of agricultural issues--distressed
farm loans, wetland determinations, conservation compliance,
pesticides, and others. Operated primarily by State universities or
departments of agriculture, the program provides neutral mediators to
assist producers, primarily small farmers, in resolving disputes before
they culminate in litigation or bankruptcy. Mediation, at about $500
per case, offers significant savings over national level administrative
hearings, which cost about $3,000 to $4,000 per case in direct costs
alone.
Participating States certify their programs with FSA annually. In
fiscal year 2000, 23 certified States have received grants.
The Budget requests $4 million, an increase of $1 million over
fiscal year 2000, to help participating States expand the range of
issues they are able to mediate and to meet the rising demand expected
as a result of the slump in the farm economy. This year's record volume
of farm loan activity, particularly in the context of continuing
economic stress for producers, can be expected to generate an increased
number of conflicts needing mediation.
Authority for State Mediation Grants expires at the end of fiscal
year 2000. A legislative proposal is being submitted to reauthorize the
program through fiscal year 2005.
Emergency Conservation Program
The President's Budget requests no Emergency Conservation Program
(ECP) funding for fiscal year 2001. Although no new funding was
provided in the Fiscal Year 2000 Agriculture Appropriations Act, the
Fiscal Year 2000 Consolidated Appropriations Act provided supplemental
funding of $50 million. With these funds as well as carryover
unallocated balances remaining from fiscal year 1999 and reallocation
of unused portions of prior allocations, ECP has allocated about $58.6
million to States so far in fiscal year 2000. All funding is likely to
be allocated by the end of the fiscal year.
Dairy Indemnity Program
The Dairy Indemnity Program compensates dairy farmers and
manufacturers who, through no fault of their own, suffer income losses
on milk or milk products removed from commercial markets due to
residues of certain chemicals or other toxic substances. Payees are
required to reimburse the Government if they recover their losses
through other sources such as litigation. The fiscal year 2001
appropriation request of $450,000 would cover a higher than normal but
not catastrophic level of claims.
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
The costs of administering all FSA programs are funded by a
consolidated Salaries and Expenses (S&E) account. The account is
comprised of direct appropriation, transfers from program loan accounts
under credit reform procedures, user fees, and advances and
reimbursements from various sources.
The fiscal year 2001 Budget proposes funding of $1.095 billion from
appropriated sources including credit reform transfers, a net increase
of about $89.4 million over the fiscal year 2000 level. The largest
component of the increase reflects a change in source of financing
rather than an actual increase in funding. Under Section 822 of the
Fiscal Year 2000 Agriculture Appropriations Act, $56 million was
reimbursed to the S&E account from CCC for program delivery costs in
fiscal year 2000. Based on economic assumptions used in the President's
Budget, we estimated the need for $45.2 million in fiscal year 2001 to
carry out similar workload, which was expected to decline somewhat.
Therefore the fiscal year 2001 Budget proposes restoration of $45.2
million of the one-time CCC funding to the S&E appropriated baseline.
Other items of increase include pay and related costs, a new funds
control system for farm loan programs, reengineering of other farm loan
program systems, and telecommunications costs. These increases are
partially offset by decreases in some operating costs and a reduction
in temporary employee staffing. Based on historical trends, the Budget
also assumes that $16 million in carryover funding from fiscal year
2000 will be available to support the proposed county office staffing
level in 2001.
The Budget also proposes to adjust the proportion of total S&E
funding that is provided by transfer from the Agricultural Credit
Insurance Fund in order to accurately reflect the full cost of
administering the farm loan programs in accordance with the Federal
Credit Reform Act of 1990. Over the past 5 years, the transfer has
remained virtually flat and has not reflected approved pay raises and
rising operating costs or an increase in the number of employees
actually carrying out the farm loan programs. To rectify the
accumulated imbalance and bring our accounts into compliance with
credit reform requirements, we are proposing an increase of $55.5
million in the ACIF transfer amount for fiscal year 2001. A
corresponding decrease has been taken from the S&E direct appropriation
component, although it is not readily discernible due to the
aforementioned increase for baseline restoration.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment briefly on the current status
of FSA's program delivery and the outlook for the months ahead.
As you know, 2000 is expected to be a record high for both CCC and
farm loan program outlays, and the level of expenditures is mirrored in
the FSA workload in county offices. We made maximum use of temporary
employees early in the year to enable county offices to keep up with
their workload and avoid the delays that were experienced during the
early months of fiscal year 1999. However, funding to retain these
temporary employees is insufficient, and it has become necessary to
begin dismissing many of them. Most will be off the payroll by mid-
March. We have also encountered significant unbudgeted costs during
fiscal year 2000, including both contractor and in-house costs
associated with the Pigford Consent Decree. We have also had to pay for
maintenance of information technology operations from the S&E account
due to the depletion of the CCC cap on ADP expenditures early this
fiscal year. The 2001 Budget does propose an increase of $35 million in
the ADP cap for 2001 and 2002, which would allow us to meet our minimum
ADP operations requirements. However, in order to make any progress
toward realizing the considerable benefits of a Common Computing
Environment (CCE) for the county-based agencies, positive action by the
Congress is needed on the Department's request for $75 million under
the Office of the Chief Information Officer for CCE expenditures.
A key element in the success of this effort is the replacement of
aging business and technology systems of these partner agencies that
will allow sharing of data and implementation of streamlined business
processes. The new technology will also allow these agencies to use
modern business approaches such as the Internet to provide better
access to programs for customers. However, until the CCE is fully
operational, the service center agencies will have to continue to fund
the outmoded existing systems to provide programs to customers.
The proposed $75 million in CCE funds for 2001 would fund essential
capital investments needed to achieve the goal of a fully operational
common computing environment in 2002 as set forth in the Department's
Service Center Modernization Plan. These investments are needed to
integrate the workstations and more fully achieve the benefits of
shared systems and re-engineered business processes, in order to
improve service to our customers.
An important part of the effort to modernize field operations for
FSA, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Rural Development
agencies is the effective consolidation of three separate and largely
redundant administrative systems into one under the proposed Support
Services Bureau. Separate systems constitute a glaring inefficiency
that needs to be eliminated. Consolidated support would be provided for
information technology, financial management, travel, procurement,
civil rights, and human resources management. These services would be
provided under the direction of an Executive Director who would report
to a board of directors comprised of the heads of the serviced
agencies. Unfortunately, language in the Fiscal Year 2000
Appropriations Act prevented us from implementing our plans for the
Support Services Bureau. I ask the Committee to take a look at that
language and work with us to move our operations into the modern world.
By pooling resources in the administrative arena, each agency will be
in a better position to provide greater program support.
Before closing I would like to note that the Administration will
soon transmit a legislative proposal to convert all non-Federal county
office employees to Federal status in 2000. This change will allow
greater accountability of all employees under one personnel system and
improve efficiency of Agency operations.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy to
answer your questions and those of the other Subcommittee Members at
any time.
SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING NEEDS
Senator Cochran. We are considering, as you know, a
supplemental funding bill. You have pointed out these problems
that you have right now in this fiscal year. Can you identify
the levels of funding that you need to meet your current
workload requirements?
Mr. Schumacher. We have a proposal that Mr. Kelly has
provided to me that I passed through to the Secretary, and
Dennis, that we will be hopefully moving forward in an
expedited fashion. Truthfully, Mr. Chairman, we have basically
used up most of the support for temporary staffing in the first
6 months of the year because of the tremendous workload we have
had. So we are working through a supplemental right now, and
the exact numbers will hopefully be available very shortly from
the OMB.
Senator Cochran. We noticed that in the budget request you
basically request the amount of money that you have already
gotten for the next fiscal year in this year's fiscal year
budget. Is that not true?
Mr. Kelly. Senator, what you have to look at in the budget
is that we got----
Senator Cochran. That is for the Farm Service Agency; let
me be more specific.
Mr. Kelly. Correct. The budget request reflects the fact
that we got Commodity Credit Corporation reimbursement for
program delivery through the emergency title of the
appropriation this fiscal year. So of the increase in the
President's Budget, $45 million is just to get us back to a
comparable appropriated baseline and prevent the reduction in
force of about 700 employees, just to hold us completely
neutral. That is the key part of it. When you see that increase
in the budget, actually $45 million is to restore the portion
of the $56 million reimbursement that the President's Budget
estimated would be needed to carry out similar types of
workload in fiscal year 2001.
STATUS OF FSA COUNTY EMPLOYEES
Senator Cochran. The budget suggests that the
Administration will request legislation to convert non-Federal
Farm Service Agency personnel to Federal employee status in
2000. Will this have any impact on the Agency's funding
requirements or affect the staffing levels presented in the
fiscal year 2001 budget?
Mr. Schumacher. I do not think so. Keith? I will get back
to you on that one, Mr. Chairman. I do not believe so, unless I
stand corrected.
Mr. Kelly. Mr. Chairman, I can respond on that. The budget
impact of that conversion is neutral, with the exception of
some administrative costs of converting people from the county
system to the GS employment system. We could ensure that those
employees converting from the county to the Federal system
would maintain their grades and maintain their seniority and
all of those things, to leave it relatively neutral other than
some administrative costs that we would necessarily absorb.
FSA TEMPORARY STAFFING
Senator Cochran. What impact has this had on the delivery
of payments to farmers under the disaster assistance program?
You talked about having to reduce the number of temporary
employees since November of 1999. What impact has that had on
delivering benefits, ad hoc disaster payments to farmers?
Mr. Kelly. Senator, if I can comment. First, we are just in
the process right now of starting to lay off of the temporary
employees. We started looking at that with all of our States,
depending on the individual State, right after the 1st of the
year. As the Under Secretary indicated earlier, we did keep
people employed on the front end. We have had them employed at
a very heavy level, to keep us from getting behind in the
county offices. And one needs to recall only last year, as we
got so buried with paperwork in the loan deficiency payments
that we were forever digging ourselves out, which really
necessitated two supplementals.
So now we are just getting in. We just closed the signup
for the crop disaster program last Friday. We have been making
the advance payments of 35 percent of the projected disaster
programs payments. We have just about depleted all of the
resources for temporary help to keep offices current with
whatever disaster or emergency program or loan deficiency
payment has been going on.
We are at a point that we are going to be sending people
home. This month of March is the targeted date. Some have
already gone home. And so we will probably be slowing down in
getting some of these other payments, the remainder of the 22
programs, out the door.
FSA WORKLOAD
Senator Cochran. Are you going to tell the farmers that
they are not going to get their payments on time or there will
be a delay in getting their benefits? How are you all going to
spin that one?
Mr. Kelly. Senator, we are doing the best we can with what
we have out there. We just do not have the ability to go in the
red. At one time or another it is going to happen. The loan
deficiency payments, if we get behind on them, farmers are
going to be banging on our doors. And I believe nobody here has
been contacted with complaints yet, because at least for all of
the payments and programs so far, we have been able to keep--I
guess for lack of a better word--our nose above the water.
But we have got two major programs still sitting out there
to finish up--the disaster program and, probably the biggest
labor-intensive one, the oilseed program. We are going to have
800,000 to 1 million farmers coming through the door to sign up
for the oilseed program, for that $475 million of the emergency
legislation from last year. That is going to be the most labor-
intensive program we have. And we are just going to have to set
priorities of which programs we get through first.
Senator Cochran. We want to work with you to help deal with
that problem. I do not know how quickly we can get the work
done here and a consensus on the exact amount of money
available for a supplemental, but we want to support you and be
helpful to you. Any suggestions that you might have about
action that we should take to help deal with these shortfalls
and these problems, we would love to have the benefit of your
suggestions.
Mr. Schumacher. This is my seventh hearing before you. You
have always been very supportive, and I have indicated that in
my testimony. We would very much like to work with you, Mr.
Chairman. These are tough times. You know it in your own State.
Keith and I and Parks and everybody here has worked very hard
to get this huge level of the emergency payments out the door.
This year it has been quite difficult with the 22 new programs,
because it requires training. And I visited with some staff
just yesterday about the consent agreement. They are just now
going back to deal with the oilseed program.
So Keith and I and perhaps your committee and the committee
on the other side can work together if and when this
supplemental comes forward on an expedited basis.
CCC ADP CAP
Mr. Kelly. Senator, if I can add one other thing which
would help us. That is to get the Commodity Credit Corporation
cap on data processing lifted. Because the same thing with
those----
Senator Cochran. Is this the so-called Section 11 cap?
Mr. Kelly. This is not the Section 11 cap. This is the ADP
cap.
Senator Cochran. Another cap. How many caps are there?
Mr. Kelly. There are two caps that I refer to.
Senator Cochran. Are these your caps or our caps?
Mr. Kelly. The caps have come down from the Congress, with
adjustments over time. I am talking now about the cap on the
amount that the Commodity Credit Corporation was allowed to
expend on automated data processing. Last year, we had a
proposal up for a $35 million increase.
We had to use some salary and expense money this year just
to keep the basic core computer operations running. And I know
that proposal will be before you to raise that cap so we can
maintain the tools for our employees to do the work. Otherwise,
we guarantee it will become very, very labor-intensive and
manual-intensive to do the work.
Senator Cochran. Thank you for telling us about that.
Senator Kohl, any comments or questions? You are recognized
for whatever time you may want.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB KOHL
DAIRY EXPORT INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
In my opening statement, which I will submit for the
record, I express my disappointment in the lack of any
meaningful support for dairy in the Administration's farm
safety net proposal. I will not belabor that point at this
time. But I do want to focus on other tools that the Department
has to help dairy farmers address market volatility, to take
advantage of global markets and to manage financial risk. I
think even in these categories the Administration is not doing
all it could to help dairy farmers.
U.S. milk producers have relied on the Dairy Export
Incentive Program to help them compete in badly distorted world
markets. I am concerned, however, about the future of this
program in fiscal year 2001, given our WTO obligations to
reduce both the volume and the value of DEIP exports. This is
particularly a concern given the low milk prices predicted for
the duration of this year. The dairy industry has often relied
on DEIP to reduce price depressing surpluses.
How will our WTO obligations affect exports under DEIP in
the coming years, and will there be an associated impact on
milk prices?
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB KOHL
Welcome Secretary Schumacher, and Mr. Collins, it is good to see
you again.
In reviewing your prepared statements, I noticed you have plainly
stated an unfortunate generalization with which we have all become too
familiar. In spite of an overall economic boom, the American farmer--
and indeed, people throughout rural America--are suffering through
difficult times.
Partially in response to this, Secretary Schumacher, you have
outlined for us the Administration's proposal for a farm safety net
initiative. Secretary Glickman provided a similar overview when he was
before us a few weeks ago. Now, as then, I have to stress the glaring
omission of any meaningful relief in your proposed package for dairy
farmers--even though you highlight in your opening statement--in fact
in your first few paragraphs--that last year dairy prices experienced
their steepest decline in history. I repeat, in history.
Yet, your $11.5 billion package only offers an extension of the
current dairy price support program. While better than nothing, I think
you would agree, as Secretary Glickman conceded, that it falls far
short of the type of assistance needed to protect dairy farmers in my
State and elsewhere. And, I have to restate, the type of assistance you
are providing for dairy farmers is nowhere close to the types and
levels of assistance you are proposing for other agricultural
commodities.
In my State, agriculture IS dairy. I will not watch another farm
relief package go by that ignores this important and struggling
industry.
Of course, the Farm Safety Net Initiative is only part of the
President's proposal relating to agriculture. Aside from that
legislative proposal, we have before this subcommittee a sizable
request for discretionary and mandatory appropriations to fund a host
of farm and foreign agricultural trade programs.
It goes without saying that USDA programs within the Farm and
Foreign Agriculture mission area are far reaching. These programs range
from the annual operating loan for a small or beginning farmer to
humanitarian food assistance needed to feed a starving world. It is
important that we all work together to make sure these programs
function as they should. Risk Management must be designed in a way that
truly manages risk. The Farm Service Agency must have the resources
necessary to ensure that farmers receive adequate services. Our Foreign
Market Development programs must truly develop and maintain foreign
markets.
I look forward to your remarks.
Mr. Schumacher. I want to ask Mr. Fritz to join me. He runs
the Dairy Export Incentive Program. And while he is coming to
the table let me say that we have used the DEIP program very
aggressively, Senator. We have also used some of the rollover
funds, as well, to help dairy farmers as much as possible to
move some of this product overseas.
We also, in a related way, used our food aid authorities.
We donated a substantial amount of nonfat dry milk last year.
We may have to do more because more of that is coming in now.
With your permission, I will ask Mr. Fritz to brief you on
where we are on DEIP for this coming year.
Mr. Fritz. Yes, sir, we feel we have used the DEIP program
very aggressively in the last few years. We have used the
rollover authority that we do have, to get up to over 100,000
tons of nonfat dry milk last year. But we will be significantly
constrained due to our WTO commitments in that in 2000, for
nonfat dry milk, we are going to be at a maximum of 68,000
tons. And obviously we are not quite sure what the rollover
level may be from this current year, but it will probably be in
the neighborhood of 7,000 tons. But our tonnage and our dollar
values will go down based on the WTO commitment significantly.
How this will impact dairy prices, I am not sure. Maybe Mr.
Collins has an answer for that. We are taking in a lot of
nonfat dry milk in the CCC loan forfeitures. We have put in
25,000 metric tons into the 416 program. And we will be using
nonfat dry milk, as well, for PVO donations overseas.
Senator Kohl. I would like to ask what USDA plans to do to
mitigate the impact of significant reductions in subsidized
exports and to aid exports of U.S. dairy products. You have
said a little bit; is there more you can say?
Mr. Schumacher. Yes, sir, if I may, Mr. Fritz. Frankly, the
Dairy Export Council does a terrific job. I think we are now
providing about $1.5 million to promote their commercial
exports overseas. And if the Congress were to allow us to use
any unused Export Enhancement Program funds, we could provide
further assistance for trade promotion for groups like this and
your cranberry growers.
Mr. Collins. Can I make a comment on that, just in answer
to the price effect question?
Senator Kohl. Yes, please.
NONFAT DRY MILK
Mr. Collins. I think, in the short term, it would not have
much effect on prices. And I say that only because, as Mr.
Fritz pointed out, we are making very substantial purchases
under the price support program of nonfat dry milk. We could
buy 300 million pounds of nonfat dry milk this year, probably
30 percent of the total nonfat dry milk production in the
United States. So what happens is if you are not moving it out
through DEIP--and most of the DEIP is nonfat dry milk--with
prices at support, it is going to end up in the support
program. So we will just keep prices right at support.
Now, if prices start to move above support, then the lack
of having 100,000 tons of nonfat dry milk DEIP, like we had
last year, then that would have a price reducing effect.
Senator Kohl. The Department recently announced 3 million
tons of commodity donations under the Section 416(b) program.
This program and others, like Public Law 480, have long proven
to be of vital importance to help combat world hunger. They
have the added benefit of providing an outlet for U.S.
production, which will become increasingly important as the
U.S. complies with its WTO obligations.
Unfortunately, the recent Section 416 announcement includes
only 25,000 tons of nonfat dry milk as part of the 3 million
ton aid package. Since it is clear that the Department will be
purchasing surplus dry milk throughout much of the year as milk
prices remain near the price support, why did not the
Administration include more significant quantities of dry milk
powder in this aid package?
Mr. Fritz. If I could address that, Senator. One of the
difficulties we do have is programming nonfat dry milk in terms
of finding recipients for such a product. Number one, generally
it is a non-fortified product, so we have to find people who
are willing to fortify the product so that it can be used in
various countries overseas. And, two, it is often used as an
ingredient for other foods rather than consumed as nonfat dry
milk. So it is a very difficult item to program in less
developed and developing countries based on its usage and the
fact that it is a non-fortified product.
Senator Kohl. Well, is there something that the Department
can and will do to increase the proportion of milk powder
provided in this aid package?
Mr. Fritz. As we have done in the past, we are trying to do
something to increase the fortification of the dry product. And
we are meeting with the dairy industry, as we have with other
commodities in 416, to try and better target our programming
both now and in the future.
DAIRY OPTIONS PILOT PROGRAM
Senator Kohl. In addition to viable export markets, dairy
farmers need risk management tools. That is why I have long
been an advocate for the Dairy Options Pilot Program. When the
Secretary was here 2 weeks ago, he told us the Department would
be ramping up this program. However, I am troubled to learn
that USDA is significantly limiting program availability in
round two of the pilot. USDA is not allowing farmers from the
initial pilot to participate in this program.
This is of special concern to Wisconsin farmers, where
participation in round one of the pilot was strong. This
decision is apparently based on what I believe to be a
misinterpretation of the authorizing statute. You have
effectively prevented any individual farmer from participating
in the pilot more than once. And despite the Secretary's
commitment to ramp up this program, it appears the program will
terminate in just over a year.
Would you please tell this committee what steps the
Department will take to ensure that this program will continue
to be a risk management tool available for dairy farmers?
Mr. Schumacher. Thank you, Senator. I am going to ask Ken
to join me, Ken Ackerman of Risk Management, and I will
certainly go back and check with our attorneys. We felt that
this was a pilot program for 1 year, to help farmers get in to
use the Dairy Options Pilot Program and it was just for 1 year.
We will check again with the attorneys on that.
Ken, do you want to comment on that?
Mr. Ackerman. Yes, Senator, you are correct. We have been
operating this program under a legal structure which designed
it as a pilot program. That structure was created under the
1996 Farm Act which had limitations on the number of counties
that can be in the program, limitations on the number of
counties in each State, and it had a general approach that we
would use it as an educational tool. A farmer would be in the
program for 6 months, a limited period of time, during which
they would have subsidized use of futures or options and then
they would basically be on their own.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We are planning to roll out Round Two of the program later
this year. We want to wait until milk prices are a little
higher, so farmers would be more inclined to lock in a milk
price rather than do it when prices are very low. But there
will be these limitations on counties and States because of the
pilot program structure of the Dairy Options Pilot Program.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNETH D. ACKERMAN
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
testify in support of the President's fiscal year 2001 budget for the
Risk Management Agency (RMA). Crop insurance remains USDA's principal
means of production risk protection for the nation's producers. In
1999, the program provided farmers with more than $30 billion in
protection on roughly 196 million acres through approximately 1.3
million policies. During that time, we and our private-sector partners
provided hard-hit farmers with nearly $2.2 billion in payments, most
delivered within 30 days of claims being filed.
Since 1993, the number of policies, insured acres, and liability
have increased significantly. Further, the total crop insurance premium
for 1999 exceeded our estimates by approximately 28 percent,
representing a sizeable, 24 percent increase over the 1998 level. This
remarkable increase can be attributed to the approximate 30 percent
premium discount that was offered in 1999. Producers who have expressed
concern over the increased cost of higher levels of insurance coverage
responded to this initiative by enrolling approximately 20 percent more
acres in buy-up coverage compared to the 1998 level. Emergency funding
was also provided in 2000 to allow an approximate 25 percent discount
on buy-up premium rates.
While impressive results have been achieved in a short period of
time, rapidly changing events are forcing a hard examination of the
agricultural safety net. The continuing farm crises have exposed
weaknesses in the safety net as it too ultimately suffers from
depressed commodity prices and deals with those areas hit repeatedly by
crop loss in a depressed economic environment. In addition, crops and
commodities, like livestock, do not have federally backed insurance
available to them, and farmers have far too little instruction on the
risk management tools and strategies that can protect and improve their
farm revenue.
The Administration recently announced an $11.5 billion initiative
to strengthen the farm safety net. This initiative will help thousands
of cash-strapped producers lay the basis for more permanent and
effective assistance to be enacted in the next farm bill. Components of
the reform initiative directly related to the crop insurance program
include the following:
--Premium Discounts.--Extends the initiatives taken in 1999 and 2000
by offering approximately $400 million in premium discounts on
buy-up coverage for crop insurance in 2001. In addition, $200
million will be used to pay the delivery costs associated with
the increase in coverage this discount will produce and $40
million will fund a reserve against under-estimation of
increased program participation. Based on past experience, RMA
anticipates that farmers will buy even more coverage and become
steady customers.
--Multi-year Coverage.--Includes $100 million to address the problem
of production losses and price declines that extend over
several years. These funds will be used to provide producers
with more options than currently available so that they are not
driven out of the program by sharp reductions in their actual
production history and allocated deductible.
--Livestock Insurance Pilot Program.--Funds $100 million to establish
a pilot program for insuring livestock. The pilot program would
be designed to subsidize producers' participation and establish
intermediaries to offer options contracts. Conceptually, this
program may be similar to the Dairy Options Pilot Program.
--Risk Management Education.--Expands risk management education
activities through four methods: risk management clubs, direct
producer training workshops, agricultural education at
community colleges, and technology based information and
education. The $40 million initiative would be modified
regionally to accommodate the local needs of producers.
--Research and Development.--Includes $30 million to expand research
and development activities through incentives and use of
private and public sources utilizing their expertise and
resources to address an ever-changing risk environment.
RMA is committed to helping our private-sector partners build
participation by providing new crop insurance programs and helping
producers understand and manage their agricultural risks. Over the past
several years, this goal has carried RMA into many areas beyond
providing traditional crop insurance, including the development of
innovative products and services based on proposals from the private
sector. As a result of these partnerships, we have developed innovative
insurance products, a dairy options pilot program, and a wide range of
projects to help farmers become better risk managers. Today, I'd like
to briefly highlight some recent initiatives and detail plans for
fiscal year 2001.
RESPONDING TO THE MARKET
To help farmers manage their risk and diversify their operations,
RMA has been aggressively creating new programs and expanding the
availability of existing plans of insurance. For example:
--New Crop Programs.--For 1999 alone, RMA created new insurance
programs to cover avocado, cabbage, cherries, crambe,
cultivated wild rice, barley, mustard, rangeland, and winter
squash. Crop insurance provides individual risk protection at
higher levels than available under the Noninsured Assistance
Program (NAP).
During fiscal year 2001, RMA will be continuing development of
programs to better protect growers not currently covered by crop
insurance. For 2000, priorities will be given to the development of
insurance programs for cultivated clams, chile peppers, processing
cucumbers, Florida fruit trees, onion stage removal, pumpkins,
strawberries, and a coverage enhancement option on apples, canola,
potatoes, grapes, rice, and citrus fruit.
--Asiatic Citrus Canker (ACC).--Several revisions to the Florida
Fruit Tree Pilot Program were announced for the 2000 crop year.
One key policy change insures producers against losses of
citrus trees to ACC. The ACC coverage is part of the standard
policy, not an option that the producer would purchase
separately. Counties covered under the Florida Fruit Tree
policy for crop year 2000 are: Brevard, Broward, Charlotte,
Citrus, Collier, Dade, DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hernando, Henry,
Highlands, Hillsborough, Indian River, Lake, Lee, Manatee,
Marion, Martin, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pasco,
Polk, Sarasota, Seminole, St. Lucie, and Volusia.
--Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR).--The AGR insurance plan is a non-
traditional, whole farm risk management tool. The AGR concept
uses a producer's historic Schedule F tax form information as a
base to provide a level of guaranteed revenue for the insurance
period. AGR provides an insurance safety net for multiple
agricultural commodities in one insurance product, establishes
a common denominator for commodity production-cash receipts,
makes simple straightforward use of income tax forms, and
reinforces program credibility by using Internal Revenue
Service tax forms and regulations. Eligible producers may
choose one of three coverage levels: 65 percent coverage and 75
percent payment rate (65/75), 75 percent coverage and 75
percent payment rate (75/75), or 80 percent coverage and 75
percent payment rate (80/75).
--Dairy Options.--Through training and paying a portion of the
transaction costs, the dairy options pilot program helps
producers create their own financial safety net by purchasing
exchange-traded options on the price of their milk. When milk
prices fall, producers are able to offset losses based on
projected future earnings, in effect putting a ``floor'' under
their milk prices. Producers in certain pilot states and
counties are now actively using the program.
LEVERAGING SCARCE RESOURCES
RMA is leading a joint effort with the Cooperative State Research,
Education and Extension Service, the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, and a number of private-sector partners to help producers
become active risk managers. In order to leverage scarce resources, the
Agency funded approximately $900,000 in grants to diverse partnerships
all around the country to better equip producers to manage risk.
Without such partnerships, the cost of meeting our educational mandate
would increase significantly.
For fiscal year 2000, under current law, we anticipate that 12,300
producers will receive direct training through approximately 600 RMA
coordinated/facilitated risk management education sessions. In
addition, we anticipate that around 1,000 producers will participate in
risk management or marketing clubs. These estimates have dropped and
are likely to continue dropping due to lack of funding.
RMA places a strong emphasis on reaching small and limited resource
producers on the topic of risk management. These efforts are carried
out through partnerships with community based organizations. These
outreach efforts will be complemented with an information campaign to
highlight educational themes and opportunities.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATING (A&O) EXPENSES
Discretionary account expenses are estimated to increase by $3.7
million from the fiscal year 2000 level of $64 million. This increase
includes: $1.6 million for pay costs, of which $415,000 is for the
annualization of the fiscal year 2000 pay raise and $1.2 million for
the anticipated fiscal year 2001 pay raise; $1 million for research and
development costs related to the study and evaluation of a program for
biobased products as part of the President's initiatives; $700,000 for
civil rights activities aimed at increasing the participation of women
and minorities, and assuring that underserved and socially-
disadvantaged producers/ranchers have full access to RMA programs; and
an additional $403,000 for information technology costs. Fiscal year
2001 information technology needs include a wide variety of
enhancements, additions, services, and maintenance in continued support
of system integrity to meet the continuing growth and demands of the
program.
FCIC FUND
Under current law, the budget for the FCIC Fund proposes an
estimated $1.0 billion increase in program level. This seemingly large
increase is a result of using a portion of prior years' unobligated
balances--$953.8 million--to cover indemnities and other expenses in
fiscal year 2000.
Premium subsidy is expected to increase by $66.2 million due, in
part, to an estimated increase in participation. In accordance with the
Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994, for the purpose of
encouraging the broadest possible participation of producers, FCIC pays
a portion of crop insurance premiums. The $956.1 million in premium
subsidy, of which $298.6 million is for catastrophic (CAT) coverage and
$657.5 million is for additional coverage, assists in providing
producers a cost-effective means of managing their risk.
Delivery expenses, which represent the amount of administrative and
operating expense reimbursements provided to approved insurance
providers for delivering risk management services and products, are
based on 24.5 percent of estimated total premium for fiscal year 2001
in accordance with the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education
Reform Act of 1998. As a result of increased total premium, RMA
anticipates delivery expenses in the amount of $507.7 million, compared
with the fiscal year 2000 estimate of $486.3 million. This increase
will assure continued effective delivery of risk management products to
the agricultural community.
RMA also expects excess losses, which are based on calculations of
increased premium and program losses, to increase by $13.7 million to a
level of $298.8 million. This estimate supports a loss ratio of 1.075
and is authorized under the appropriation language ``such sums as may
be necessary.'' Without these funds, which directly support the mission
and goal of the Agency, FCIC would be unable to fully fund expected
indemnities, thereby weakening the producers' safety net.
The fiscal year 2001 current law funding request for research and
development expenses is $3.5 million. No increase or decrease is
requested. In accordance with the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998, RMA's ability to develop new products,
support private sector initiatives through section 508(h) products, and
help farmers become better risk managers was severely limited. Under
that legislation, RMA's research and education funds were capped at
$3.5 million per fiscal year, an immediate 67 percent reduction from
the fiscal year 1998 level of $10.7 million. This reduction has created
an immediate need for additional funding so that we can continue to
provide new products, support private sector initiatives, and provide
educational outreach to farmers. This need is being addressed in the
Administration's safety net initiative, which provides $30 million for
research and development activities and $40 million for risk management
education initiatives in 2001.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, we must succeed in strengthening the farm safety net
or we may have a repeat of prior years' emergency spending package. We
have made a good start by reducing farmer premiums by an estimated 30
percent in 1999 and an estimated 25 percent in 2000. However, more can
and must be done.
I know of no other program in all of government that has produced a
greater return on the taxpayers' dollar (please see the attached
graphics.) While proposals to enhance the crop insurance program are
working their way through Congress, RMA is requesting $3.7 million more
in discretionary funding. This funding level is essential if RMA's
infrastructure is to support and leverage the necessary initiatives and
demands for continued maintenance, growth, and expansion of the
program. Even at full funding, RMA will only be able to maintain
products and services at the current level, while slightly increasing
activities aimed at increasing the participation of women and
minorities and assuring that underserved and socially-disadvantaged
producers and ranchers have full access to all RMA programs. In
addition, RMA would be able to support the Presidential Biobased
Products/Bioenergy Initiative. Personnel ceilings will continue to hold
at fiscal year 1999 levels. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony.
I will be pleased to answer any questions.
Senator Kohl. So you are saying the program will terminate
or it will not terminate?
Mr. Ackerman. The program will have a Round Two later this
year, but the overall authority for the program I believe, had
a limit in terms of the number of years that it was available.
It does phase out, but we are not terminating it at this point.
Again, we have a Round Two of the Dairy Options Pilot Program
that we will be rolling out later this year, but it will have
these limitations on States and counties.
CONSERVATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Senator Kohl. When Secretary Glickman and Deputy Secretary
Rominger were before this subcommittee, I raised the question
about the shortfall in technical assistance for the
Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program
due to the so-called Section 11 cap. Mr. Rominger indicated
that despite the supplemental appropriation provided by this
committee for fiscal year 2000, USDA would still be short of
necessary funding to deliver technical assistance for these
important programs this year.
He stated on the record that a request for additional
funding would be included in the Administration's supplemental
request. And so I was dismayed last week to see that the
Administration's request does not ask for funding to deal with
this very serious problem. The result could be, Secretary
Schumacher, that USDA will not be able to deliver these
important programs.
So, how do you account for the lack of conservation
technical assistance funding in the Administration's
supplemental request?
Mr. Schumacher. I am going to ask Dennis if he could
address that.
Mr. Kaplan. That, like the FSA problem, is still being
looked at within the Administration, and they will hopefully
have an answer very soon.
FFAS FUNDING ISSUES
Mr. Schumacher. I indicated on the record just a few
minutes ago, Senator, we are working through some additional
issues. I received a request from the Farm Service Agency. That
has been passed through, and we hope to get that up to
Congress. Not only the Farm Service Agency, but what we are
finding is that, in the Foreign Agricultural Service and in the
Risk Management Agency, this crisis that is upon us more and
more is being overtaken by events, whether it is the additional
money for the consent agreement or the need--if we can put that
other chart up there on Risk Management, Ken--we have gone from
$14 billion, Senator, to $30 billion in liability coverage, yet
the Risk Management Agency has been basically straight-lined.
And similarly in our export programs. So in all three
agencies we are having some difficulties on the staffing side.
And included among our concerns is the computer side, because
the legacy systems have been overused. I heard a figure this
morning, Senator, that really stunned me at my staff meeting.
Ken, someone told me you had something like 1.3 billion in
terms of the numbers of requests, computer transactions, you
handle in crop insurance on an annualized basis. It was
absolutely stunning.
Mr. Ackerman. The number of actual transactions is in the
billions every year in crop insurance. In the past half a dozen
years, the program, as Mr. Schumacher points out, has expanded
by two to three times. We have literally gone from about 20,000
county crop programs to 35,000 county crop programs. We have
gone from insuring about 70 crops in the mid-nineties to now
having 138 different crop insurance programs that we administer
during a time when our budget has stayed constant.
So, yes, we, like the Farm Service Agency, are hitting the
wall in terms of our staffing and our ability to continue to
expand and grow.
CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM
Senator Kohl. Just in connection with that, we have got
many farmers in Wisconsin trying to prepare for this growing
season, and they do not know whether or not they have land
under CRP contract or not. So when do you expect these farmers
will receive a decision on their CRP cases from the FSA?
Mr. Schumacher. Parks Shackelford is with us, as well. He
is working very hard on the CRP and also the CREP. Maybe he
could take just a minute to present that to you.
Mr. Shackelford. I think there is a misunderstanding,
because all the contracts eligible for renewal during the
signup that is going on now are in effect until September 30th
of this year. So land that is under contract will continue to
be under contract for this growing season. The new contracts
for the signup that we have just completed will become
effective on October 1st. We will notify producers, hopefully,
I believe, in the month of April about the lands that will be
under contract starting in October.
Senator Kohl. But there are nine case, I understand, that
the Wisconsin State FSA office has sent on to headquarters here
in October and November of last year. And they have not yet
been specifically addressed.
Mr. Shackelford. I will have to follow up on those.
Senator Kohl. Can you follow up on those?
Mr. Shackelford. I am not familiar with the specific nine
cases, but we will certainly get you an answer.
Senator Kohl. Can we do that?
Mr. Shackelford. Yes, sir.
Senator Kohl. Excellent. That would be appreciated.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Kohl.
When Senator Gorton was here, he mentioned the agriculture
trade office in Singapore and the plans to close it. The FAS
has cited budgetary constraints as the reason. And I note that
in the fiscal year 2001 budget request, additional
appropriations for FAS to open three new agriculture trade
offices in Mexico, Canada and the Philippines are included. Why
are these three new offices of higher priority than retaining
the agriculture trade office in Singapore? Did FAS consider
requesting additional resources to retain the office in
Singapore. And if not, why not?
CLOSING ATO SINGAPORE
Mr. Schumacher. I am going to ask Tim to expand on that. We
looked at that pretty hard, Senator, on Singapore. Not only
Senator Gorton raised that question, but Senator Bond and
others are raising the issue of Singapore. That is probably one
of the highest cost cities we have. We looked at the available
funding and what we could save by closing Singapore and moving
the local people to Kuala Lumpur. That gave us additional
resources for more critical offices, where our trade is
growing.
But on the broader budget issue, I would like to have Mr.
Galvin comment. Again, I do not want this to be just staffing
issue hearing, because we have many more issues to discuss. But
I am concerned as well about the Foreign Agricultural Service,
on the overall budgetary issue, in terms of how we can work
together on that issue.
Mr. Galvin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As Mr. Schumacher
pointed out, that agriculture trade office in Singapore is one
of our highest cost operations, about $900,000 a year. We felt
that if Singapore were to close, we could continue to provide
marketing services in that region from our other attache
offices throughout that part of the world. Then, we looked to
the future and sought budget increases for additional ATO's,
that would offer us an increased return in terms of market
development and increased export sales.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I might say that the closure in Singapore was not the only
action we took. And I can tell you that we took that action
very reluctantly. But actually, over the past year, we have
closed offices or reduced our presence in about half a dozen
locations, including office closures in Milan, in Berne, and
Jeddah, as well as reducing our presence in Hamburg and Tokyo.
All together, those actions saved us about $1 million in the
current year. And as we follow through on our plans to close
Singapore this year, as I mentioned, that should bring us about
$900,000 in savings in the coming year.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Timothy J. Galvin
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to review the work of the Foreign Agricultural Service
(FAS) and to present the President's budget request for FAS programs
for fiscal year 2001.
U.S. TRADE PROSPECTS
Fiscal 1999 was a mixed year for U.S. agricultural trade. Exports
reached $49 billion--down almost 20 percent from the $60 billion record
of 4 years ago, and we project that U.S. exports will remain flat at
$49 billion again this year.
This past year, we actually saw a gain in export volume of about 15
percent. However, 4 consecutive years of bumper crops worldwide and the
slow pace of economic recovery in Asia continue to weigh down prices.
As a result, much lower prices caused export value to decline this past
year, and they explain why export value will remain flat this year.
Also troubling is the steady erosion in U.S. market share of global
agricultural trade over the past two decades. This could culminate in
the United States losing out to the European Union (EU) as the world's
top agricultural exporter sometime in 2000.
From fiscal year 1981 until the global economic crisis in fiscal
year 1998, worldwide trade in food and agricultural products nearly
doubled. While U.S. agricultural exports also grew during this period--
especially over the past decade--the fact is that U.S. export growth
lagged behind that of its major competitors, resulting in a loss of
U.S. market share, from 24 percent in 1981 to its current level of 18
percent.
The decline in market share seems to defy what we know about the
strength of the U.S. food production system. After all, the United
States has the world's most efficient producers, processors, and
distributors of agricultural products. We have one of the safest food
supplies in the world. We have an abundance of high-quality bulk
commodities and world class high-value and consumer-ready food
products, and we have consistently shared our bounty with less
fortunate nations through food aid and related assistance.
However, over the past few years, several factors have contributed
to the drop in U.S. agricultural export levels and market share.
First, while U.S. agricultural exports have declined, so has global
trade in agricultural commodities. The value of global agricultural
trade shrunk from $302 billion in 1997 to an estimated level of $270
billion in 1999. The Asian financial crisis and higher production of
basic commodities worldwide resulted in soft world market prices for
many agricultural products.
Second, the U.S. dollar remained strong, making U.S. products more
expensive relative to competitor countries' products.
Third, our major competitors--the European Union (EU) and the
Cairns Group--have outspent the United States in both public and
private sector market promotion funding by a wide margin. Market
promotion activities were not disciplined in the Uruguay Round. Our
competitors were quick to take advantage, increasing spending by 35
percent, or nearly $1 billion, in the past 3 years. Meanwhile, U.S.
spending remained flat. Notably, our competitors have directed this
increase almost exclusively to the high-value and consumer-ready
product trade, where global import demand is growing fastest.
Fourth, direct export subsidies, though disciplined under the
Uruguay Round, are still at formidable levels. The EU was by far the
largest user of this form of assistance, spending $7.5 billion in 1997,
the latest year data are available. U.S. direct export subsidies
contrast sharply with the EU's--$121 million, or 1.6 percent of the EU
total, in 1997.
FAS EFFORTS TO SUPPORT FARM INCOME
One can only imagine how much worse the situation would be,
especially for U.S. exports, if we had not continued the vigorous use
of our long-standing export programs. With large surpluses and rock-
bottom prices here at home, we have actively used food aid to move
commodities out of the U.S. marketplace to needy areas around the
world. Under fiscal year 1999 food aid programs, USDA programmed nearly
8 million metric tons of U.S. commodities--close to five times the
previous year's shipments and the largest tonnage in many, many years.
American commodities went to around 50 countries last year--from
the unprecedented assistance package for Russia to food relief for
Kosovo refugees, famine victims in North Korea, and hurricane victims
in Central America and the Caribbean. Under the authority of Section
416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (Section 416), CCC
donated nearly $800 million worth of commodities, including 5.2 million
tons of wheat and wheat products, 274,000 tons of corn, and about
23,000 tons of dry milk. These U.S. surpluses were taken off the market
and put to good use, helping to relieve hunger and suffering abroad.
Our export credit guarantee programs facilitated sales of more than
$3 billion in U.S. agricultural products. Our GSM-102 program helped
U.S. exporters overcome disadvantages in Turkey, and make record sales
of over $1.2 billion in Mexico. The program helped U.S. oilseed
exporters sell more than $19 million worth of oilseeds to Uzbekistan,
traditionally a buyer of South American oilseeds. Our GSM-103 program
helped U.S. exporters sell over $14 million worth of wheat to Jordan.
The Supplier Credit Guarantee Program was used for the first time by
importers in the Baltic Region, Georgia, and Turkey, resulting in sales
of nearly $1 million worth of meat products to buyers in the Baltic
Region, and about $2.9 million worth of poultry products and $57,000
worth of hides and skins to buyers in Georgia and Turkey.
With the aid of the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP), U.S.
exporters sold more than 136,000 tons of dairy products valued at $337
million. USDA awarded more than $145 million in bonuses to help U.S.
dairy exporters meet prevailing world prices and develop foreign
markets. The Export Enhancement Program was used only sparingly in 1999
because of market conditions, with bonuses of about $1.4 million
awarded for sales of more than 2,000 tons of frozen poultry.
We continue to stress the importance of market development. In
1999, we allocated $90 million to 65 U.S. trade organizations, State
regional groups, and cooperatives for export promotion activities under
the Market Access Program (MAP), and approved marketing plans of $33.5
million for 26 trade organizations under the Foreign Market Development
(FMD) program.
FAS introduced record numbers of agricultural policymakers to U.S.
products and policies in 1999, and plans to meet and exceed that record
this year. Nearly 800 Cochran Fellows from 70 emerging markets
participated in short-term courses that introduced them to U.S.
products, ranging from wheat to wine. The Cochran Program provides USDA
with a unique opportunity educate foreign governments and private
sectors not only about U.S. products, but also about U.S. regulations
and policies on critical issues such as food safety and biotechnology.
On the trade policy front, USDA worked successfully to open,
expand, and maintain markets for U.S. agriculture. For example, after
years of negotiations and technical exchanges, Japan lifted its ban on
several previously unapproved varieties of U.S. tomatoes. We estimate
that Japan could purchase up to $10 million worth of U.S. tomatoes
annually as a result.
FAS played a key role in defending the U.S. position against the
EU's ban on growth-promoting hormones. FAS directed the interagency
effort to calculate and then defend before a WTO Arbitration Panel, the
loss of U.S. beef exports caused by the EU's refusal to remove its WTO-
inconsistent ban on imports of beef produced with growth-promoting
hormones. The Arbitration Panel awarded the United States $116.8
million in damages and the United States suspended trade concessions to
the EU of equal value.
The 1999 meeting of the U.S.-Mexico Binational Commission (BNC)
succeeded in achieving additional market access for U.S. exports while
enhancing long-term market development objectives. Mexico committed to
improve market access for exports of U.S. wheat, dry beans and
slaughter hogs, and to reduce costly preclearance inspection for U.S.
apples and stone fruit. Mexico represents one of the strongest and
fastest growing markets for these five commodities, with total U.S.
sales estimated at approximately $400 million in 1998.
Last April, the United States and China signed the Agreement on
U.S.-China Agricultural Cooperation, an unprecedented step in U.S.-
China agricultural trade relations. With this agreement, China finally
removes the longstanding bans on exports of U.S. wheat, citrus, and
meat and poultry to China. The agreement also calls for China's
commitment to the application of sound science, a key principle of the
WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement. The agreement confirms
a U.S.-China agricultural partnership in achieving some key objectives:
resolving trade barriers, increasing technical cooperation and
scientific exchanges and further developing our agricultural sectors.
FAS worked to ensure the successful implementation of the U.S.-
Taiwan WTO bilateral market access agreement that was signed in 1998.
This agreement, which falls under the Taiwan WTO accession
negotiations, provided immediate access for U.S. pork, poultry and
variety meat exports. During fiscal year 1999, the United States
shipped poultry, which had previously been subject to a ban, worth
about $16 million and pork and beef worth an estimated $60 million.
These shipments mark the successful implementation of the ``down
payment'' quotas provided for by the WTO Bilateral Agreement signed by
Taiwan and the United States. Under the agreement Taiwan also modified
its administration of the potato quota. This modification led to the
importation of an estimated $10 million in fresh potatoes.
In 1999, FAS negotiators helped to conclude important bilateral
agreements that paved the way for Estonia and the Republic of Georgia
to join the WTO as full members. The market access agreements require
Estonia and Georgia to reduce import tariffs on important U.S. farm
products, which will create greater market opportunities for U.S.
farmers and ranchers. Both countries agreed to bind tariffs at or below
10 percent on U.S. priority products and committed to not use export
subsidies. U.S. agricultural exports to these two countries are
expected to grow approximately $3-4 million annually following their
accession into the WTO. FAS negotiators also concluded agricultural
bilateral accession agreements, worth approximately another $4 million,
with Albania, Croatia, Oman and Jordan, and continued to work on two
dozen other accessions including Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Ukraine.
FAS continues to monitor aggressively foreign countries' compliance
with Uruguay Round Agreement commitments. For example, at the request
of the United States, a WTO dispute settlement panel is examining
Korea's import and domestic support programs for beef. As part of its
Uruguay Round commitments, Korea agreed to liberalize its beef market
by January 1, 2001. However, after Korea failed to meet its minimum
import quotas in 1997 and 1998, it became clear that numerous market
access barriers exist that are inconsistent with Korea's WTO
commitments and threaten to inhibit full market liberalization. These
impediments include restricted sales of imported beef at the retail
level, a government ``mark-up'' on imported beef, excessive support
payments to domestic producers, and limitations on import authority.
Korea's imports of U.S. beef reached $319 million in 1995, before
dropping to only $140 million in 1998.
At 1999's meetings of the Committee on Agriculture, FAS analysts
reviewed and raised questions on over 250 WTO notifications. The value
of trade addressed through U.S. vigilance of commitments is over $500
million. This was achieved through questioning member's domestic grain
purchasing policies that appeared to violate export subsidy
commitments; challenging the discriminatory issuance of import licenses
for dairy products, pork and poultry; questioning the WTO-inconsistent
execution of a preferential trade arrangement that harmed U.S. apple
exports; and questioning low tariff rate quota (TRQ) application for a
range of commodities. These efforts contributed to several members
halting implementation of or modifying WTO inconsistent practices.
PRIORITIES FOR 2001
Faced with continuing budget constraints, a strong U.S. dollar and
continued aggressive spending on market promotion by our competitors,
we must redouble our efforts to improve the outlook for U.S.
agricultural exports. We are closely examining why the United States is
losing market share in certain markets, and intend to take actions to
remedy the situation, consistent with our budget resources. For
example, we plan to continue to:
--pinpoint constraints to U.S. agricultural, fish, and forest
products;
--work to remove trade barriers and trade-distorting practices;
--safeguard U.S. agricultural interests by advocating U.S. policies
in the international community;
--help producers, processors, and exporters to strengthen their
export knowledge and skills;
--ensure that the U.S. farm, forest and fishery sectors and our
research community have timely and complete intelligence about
emerging market opportunities;
--inform foreign buyers about the superior quality and reliable
quantities offered by U.S. agricultural producers, and educate
them about how to locate U.S. products;
--use our export credit guarantee programs to reach new customers for
U.S. agriculture;
--use our food aid authorities to help needy people overseas and
farmers here at home;
--use USDA export assistance programs such as the Foreign Market
Development Program and Market Access Program to the maximum
extent reasonable to pursue export opportunities; and
--work with emerging markets and developing countries to promote
economic development to help meet the U.S. commitment to reduce
by half the number of food insecure persons by 2015.
As we forge ahead, it is obvious that we need to look at new ways
of doing business to reduce costs, streamline programs and tap into new
technologies. In 1999, FAS received two prestigious Hammer Awards from
the Vice President's office for improving the operational efficiency of
its programs.
One was awarded for FAS's development and implementation of a
``Unified Export Strategy'' (UES). This process reinvented the planning
and application process for the MAP and the FMD program, dramatically
reducing paperwork requirements and improving operational efficiency
for both programs. The UES encourages our strategic partners to
formulate market-specific strategies for developing or expanding export
markets. This approach facilitates a more effective use of FAS' full
arsenal of market development programs.
The other was awarded for FAS's streamlining of the process for
advancing funds to Private Voluntary Organizations (PVO) for
humanitarian food distribution. The streamlined process helped private
sector partners initiate Food for Progress program activities with much
greater cost effectiveness and time efficiency. The streamlined process
resulted in a reduction in average cycle time of transferring funds to
a PVO from 41 to 7 business days--an 83-percent improvement in the
delivery of this service.
These efforts grew out of our strategic planning process that
integrates all the marketing, credit, and trade policy tools that we
have available to maximize the market for agricultural products. This
process lets us review the competition and all FAS-sponsored efforts in
a given market to determine whether we have the optimal mix of programs
and funding, given that market's potential as a buyer of U.S.
agricultural products. It also allows us to step back and review our
efforts regionally as well as globally.
I would like to take a few moments to outline our priorities for
fiscal year 2000.
GLOBAL PRIORITIES
At the top of our list is moving forward in the WTO trade
negotiations on agriculture. Although agreement on the framework for a
new round of negotiations was not achieved at the Seattle Ministerial,
the Seattle meeting is not the end to further negotiations on
agricultural trade. Because of the ``built-in agenda'' for agricultural
reform in the Uruguay Round Agreement, work on the new agricultural
negotiations is continuing. It is clear that we are on the threshold of
a major new opportunity to advance open markets around the world. And
as President Clinton has said many times, agriculture is at the center
of the next round.
We have been doing a number of things to prepare for the
negotiations, including 13 public hearings around the country; numerous
meetings with representatives of the broad agricultural sector;
periodic sessions of our Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee and our
several commodity specific Agricultural Trade Advisory Committees; and
of course regular consultations with Congress.
We have heard from the agricultural community and members of
Congress, on a bi-partisan basis, that they are supportive of the goals
that we have established for the next round: abolishing export
subsidies, disciplining State Trading Enterprises, increasing market
access through lower tariffs, reducing trade distorting domestic
subsidies, defending the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement against
those who want to weaken it, and opening the door for new technologies,
such as biotechnology.
There are very few calls at this point for turning back the clock
or closing our borders. I believe producers recognize that by and large
we made progress in the Uruguay Round to begin the process of reducing
export subsidies, reducing import tariffs, increasing quotas, and
disciplining domestic subsidies. But because the formula chosen to
achieve much of this progress relied on percentage adjustments, it left
those countries--such as the EU--which began the process with higher
levels of protection or more generous farm support budgets in a better
position as the end of the Uruguay Round implementation period draws to
a close. Our farmers clearly understand that reality and, as a
consequence, I think most of them will judge the outcome of the next
round on whether we have been successful in bringing greater uniformity
to the levels of support provided to farmers globally.
Another priority on the trade policy front is how we deal with the
issues surrounding products produced through biotechnology. There is a
lot to say about what is happening in the biotechnology field and how
it is affecting trade, and I could go on at length to describe our
efforts at USDA to try to stay on top of the issue or to ensure that
government actions on labeling and product approval in the EU, Japan,
Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere, do not irrationally
reduce market access for U.S. commodities.
But I believe that the past few months have made clear that
developments in the marketplace are running ahead of where various
governments are at this point. The result is that the environment for
biotech products is as unsettled as it has ever been during the short
commercial life of this new technology. The demand by some users for
non-biotech commodities only, the resulting calls for segregation by
some handlers, and the indications that premiums and discounts may be
appearing for non-biotech vs. biotech commodities are bound to have an
effect on farmers' decisions regarding what to plant next year.
The next few months will likely determine whether biotech acreage
continues to increase in the United States, or whether there is some
retrenchment. Either way, this issue is likely to be a dominant one for
U.S. agriculture in the immediate years ahead, whether in the WTO or in
our bilateral relationships with customer and competitor nations alike.
That is why we have said that when it comes to biotech and the next
trade round, our focus will be in making sure that biotech approval
regimes, wherever they exist, are transparent, timely, predictable, and
science-based.
We also will be working to improve the way we carry out our market
development programs. We have had some notable successes in these
programs in the past year. For example, last January, the first
container of U.S. mohair was shipped to Peru, and the Mohair Council of
America (MCA) expects an additional $400,000 worth of mohair to be
shipped this year. This initial shipment resulted from a series of FAS
and MCA activities, funded partly by the MAP.
A study by the Northwest cherry growers found that for every dollar
spent in MAP funds for Northwest cherries, there was a $5.54 return per
20-pound case in terms of state and federal tax revenues in 1998.
Northwest cherry export sales for 1998 were valued at $75 million with
an impact on the local community of $330 million in tax revenues. In
addition, over 18,000 jobs were associated with Northwest cherry
exports.
A San Diego-based company used MAP funds to reach out to Mexican
consumers. This company saw its export sales grow by 60 percent in 1998
and by 34 percent in 1999. To handle the increased workload created by
additional export sales, the business hired two new employees. In
addition, local warehouses added employees to keep pace with this
higher volume. The company averages 25 truckloads of product to Mexico
daily (half by U.S. truckers). These shipments keep a minimum of three
truck drivers and three warehouse workers employed yearly.
As part of an extensive trade servicing effort in Latin America,
the USA Rice Federation successfully expanded U.S. rice exports to
Colombia and Ecuador. Using FMD funds, the federation sponsored visits
by Ecuadorian and Colombian rice trade delegations to the United
States. The delegations included importers who had not purchased U.S.
rice in the past and were not familiar with the U.S. industry. Several
importers purchased U.S. rice for the first time. With these new sales,
U.S. rice exports to Colombia and Ecuador rose to $74.0 million and
$28.0 million, respectively.
These are just some of the successes we have seen through our
market development programs. During the next 18 months, we hope to
build on these successes by completing the Unified Export Strategy
system. The next step is to implement a standardized evaluation process
to measure program performance and effectiveness. This will help ensure
that program allocations will have the greatest impact. We also will
incorporate into the UES data base all FAS and private sector
(including universities, profit, and non-profit enterprises) market
development efforts and results including those under the Emerging
Markets, Section 108 and Quality Samples programs. Together, these
steps will provide a comprehensive view of all market development
activities funded by FAS and provide a means to evaluate them.
We also expect to review the effectiveness of our first efforts
under the Quality Samples Program. We announced the Quality Samples
Program (QSP) last November and, to date, CCC has accepted proposals
totaling $1.2 million for this pilot program. The QSP provides funds to
private sector recipients so they can showcase the quality of U.S.
agricultural products to foreign buyers.
We also will continue work on a Clean Wheat Initiative. Under this
effort, we asked for public comment on a question first posed by U.S.
wheat producers--whether CCC should finance the installation of grain
cleaners at certain elevators around the country. At a January 28th
public hearing, testifiers included U.S. wheat growers and exporters--
and more importantly, buyers of U.S. wheat from Brazil, Colombia, and
Nigeria.
The hearing was a sobering one, especially as we heard our
customers describe the noticeably cleaner wheat offered by some of our
major competitors, including countries that clean their wheat at export
as a matter of policy.
Just 10 years ago, less than 25 percent of the world's wheat was
purchased by private buyers; today that percentage has jumped to nearly
60 percent, or about 25 million more tons than a decade ago. Private
buyers tend to have tighter quality and cleanliness specifications on
the wheat they purchase, so the question is, are we in the United
States going to respond to the apparent demand by our customers?
A number of interesting options were aired at the hearing,
including:
(1) whether CCC should specify cleaner wheat in making purchases
for our humanitarian donations overseas; that could help to set an
industry standard;
(2) whether the CCC should develop, for the first time, a standard,
comparable to that established by Canada and Australia, for the amount
of dockage in our wheat;
(3) whether CCC should offer, under the EEP program, bonuses for
those who deliver cleaner U.S. wheat; and
(4) whether CCC should carry out the original proposal to finance
the installation of grain cleaning facilities.
These are the options that we will be reviewing as we work toward a
final decision.
To further increase our chances of expanding market share, we will
continue to seek new partners through our outreach efforts to state
government officials, small and minority businesses, and first-time
exporters. We must increase the awareness, at all levels, of the
importance of trade and increased exports to the health of U.S.
agriculture. For example, FAS has encouraged the four State Regional
Trade Groups (SRTGs) to increase the number of small companies
exporting. Last year, the state groups worked with over 400 MAP
participants, educating them about the growth potential of export
markets and how to take advantage of the opportunities. By providing
export education and sponsoring trade shows and missions, the SRTGs
have played a significant role in increasing the number of small firms
participating in the MAP branded program. The resulting increases in
sales generated by these new exporters have contributed to local
revenues and employment.
Together our outreach efforts and the MAP were instrumental in
making FOODEX '99, the major food trade show in Japan, a success for
the Intertribal Agriculture Council. Five American Indian tribes were
represented at the show--Quinault Pride Enterprise representing
traditional smoked seafood products, Seminole Indians of Florida with
food seasoning, Gila River Far Board displaying grapefruit and
tangelos, Navajo Agricultural Products Industry (NAPI) with pelletized
alfalfa and pinto beans, and Yakima Land enterprises showcasing
cherries and fresh vegetables. Quinault Pride Enterprise confirmed
sales of nearly $200,000 of fresh seafood products and established a
new market outlet for a smoked shellfish product with a Tokyo retailer
operating 33 upscale sushi restaurants. The Seminole Tribe met with two
food distributors who made offers to distribute ``Seminole Swamp
Seasoning'' in their respective supermarket chains.
REGIONAL PRIORITIES
Asia
With the conclusion of bilateral negotiations with China over its
WTO accession, our work will shift toward implementation of the
agreements and establishing permanent normal trade relations with
China. This is our top priority in this region and we will be working
tirelessly on this effort. Chinese concessions will be important for
improved access opportunities, but we must remain vigilant and work
with Chinese officials to ensure market opening.
With more than 1.2 billion people or one-fifth of the world's
population, China's accession to the WTO will give U.S. agriculture
access to the world's second largest economy in terms of domestic
purchasing power. This could result in at least $2 billion in
additional U.S. agricultural exports by 2005.
China's WTO accession will strengthen the global trading system,
slash barriers to U.S. agriculture, give U.S. farmers and
agribusinesses stronger protection against unfair trade practices and
import surges, and create a more level and consistent playing field in
this market.
In order to realize these gains, we will be vigilant to ensure that
China lives up to its WTO commitments, effectively administers tariff-
rate quotas, eliminates discriminatory licensing, and fully implements
last April's Agricultural Cooperation Agreement reducing phytosanitary
barriers for citrus, wheat, and meat.
The full impact of the China accession agreement will be
significant for U.S. agriculture by accelerating some of the policy
changes apparently already underway in China. If our experience of the
past few years has made one thing clear, it is that China is an
important factor in the world trading picture. China's relative
presence as an importer or exporter has a very direct impact on U.S.
sales and on the bottom line of American producers.
China seems to have recognized that the policy of self-sufficiency
that it had embarked on for the past many years was costly, wasteful,
and not in its own best interests. The result of this new agreement,
hopefully, will be a more market-based system and greater opportunities
for efficient exporters, including the United States.
The U.S.-China Scientific Cooperation Program continues to be a
strong element in our relationship with China, since this program
focuses on research issues of mutual benefit to both countries. Among
priorities identified at the January 2000 U.S.-China Joint Commission
and Science and Technology Meetings were dryland agriculture, water and
soil conservation and management, germplasm exchange, and plant and
animal disease resistance.
Also in this region, our efforts to monitor and enforce our trading
rights continue, especially in markets such as Korea, Japan and Taiwan
where we continue to work to prevent the erosion of previous trade
concessions.
Finally, our participation in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC) forum supports trade liberalization efforts in this region.
While APEC itself is not a negotiation structure, it allows us to work
with other members to advance our goals in the WTO and other fora.
RUSSIA AND THE NEW INDEPENDENT STATES
Our top priority in this region is the implementation of food aid
agreements with Russia. As negotiated, last year's final package
totaled 3.7 million tons of U.S. commodities valued at $1.2 billion,
including transportation costs. We donated more than half the aid, and
once completed, Russia will have purchased more than 1.8 million tons
under Public Law 480, Title I. We are also undertaking a 500,000-ton
humanitarian food aid initiative in Russia this year.
USDA staff continues to closely monitor the final stages of
implementation. We also have received a formal request from the Russia
government for another substantial food assistance package for this
year; this is separate from the humanitarian program mentioned above. A
number of considerations have come into play in reviewing this request.
Our assessment of Russian food needs and our experiences with the
current program are key. If an agreement is reached on additional aid,
we will insist on similar monitoring measures. There are a number of
other considerations as well. For example, we have to be careful not to
reduce incentives for Russian farmers. We also have an obligation to
other trading nations to avoid actions that would disrupt international
markets, and we would consult closely with the EU and other major food
exporters.
Our trade policy focus in this region is to help a number of these
countries join the WTO. While membership in the WTO is a high priority,
we will continue to insist that these accessions be made on
commercially viable terms that provide trade and investment
opportunities for U.S. agriculture. This means that the acceding
countries will need to continue the transition from centrally planned
to full market economies by implementing new trade policies and
regulations that are fully consistent with WTO rules and obligations.
FAS will continue to work with officials in these countries to help
them make the necessary changes in their countries' trading regimes. We
plan to do this through bilateral and multilateral discussions, as well
as direct technical assistance programs. For example, FAS is presently
providing assistance to the Ministry of Agriculture in Turkmenistan to
encourage that country to move toward open market policies. FAS will
place a high priority on compliance with the WTO SPS measures and
Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreements given the growing number
of bilateral issues in this area. While we anticipate that these
reforms will create new market opportunities for U.S. exporters, we
will also emphasize to officials in these countries the importance of
the changes in terms of revitalizing their economies, attracting
foreign investment, and using international trade as an engine for
economic growth.
A more long-term FAS goal is our continued participation in
international agricultural research studies to expand and improve crop-
assessment resources for estimating wheat production in Russia and
Kazakstan.
Europe
Within Europe, maintaining market access and trade policy issues
dominate our list of priorities. We will continue to monitor the
reforms to the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), evaluating how
the current set of reforms will affect U.S. agricultural
competitiveness not only inside the EU, but also in third countries. In
addition, we are closely monitoring the EU's implementation of
bilateral agreements on rice and oilseeds.
After 6 years of difficult negotiations, the United States and the
EU signed the Veterinary Equivalency Agreement in July 1999. The
Agreement went into force in August. We expect to have the first
meetings of the joint management committee later in 2000. The first
issue we expect to be addressed will be the equivalency of the U.S. and
EU residue testing programs.
At the request of the EU, a WTO panel was formed in 1999 to
investigate the procedures used in establishing the safeguard action
protecting the U.S. wheat gluten industry. We are working closely with
the U.S. Trade Representative's office to defend this action. In
addition, we are evaluating options identified by the International
Trade Commission in its mid-quota review that will maintain and
increase the effectiveness of the quotas operation.
We continue to work with the European Commission and member state
governments on the bilateral market access issues regarding
agricultural products produced with biotechnology. Current issues
include proposed EU labeling regulations, amendments to the EU approval
process, and identification of options to re-open the EU corn market to
U.S. exports. Furthermore, we are currently engaged in a pilot project
with the EU and member states to compare data requirements for biotech
product approvals.
FAS, in cooperation with the Agricultural Marketing Service, will
continue to work with the EU and member state governments to fully
implement an International Standards Organization (ISO) accreditation
program developed by USDA in 1999. This program allows qualified U.S.
exporters of organic products to maintain and expand their estimated
$200 million in annual exports to the EU.
After opening negotiations in 1999, we continue to work towards
negotiating a new bilateral wine agreement with the EU. In addition, we
are working closely with other wine exporting countries to maximize
opportunities in global market access for wine exports.
In the Baltics, we will continue to deliver an agriculture
improvement and agribusiness program under the President's Northern
Europe Initiative. We will follow up on our dairy sector improvement
seminar with continuing links between participating U.S. universities
and the Baltics dairy industry. Additional programs will enhance
agribusiness investment and trade opportunities, particularly in the
forestry and pork sectors.
FAS will continue to monitor developments as several countries
proceed with plans to join the EU. While we support this next round of
accessions, the change could have a significant effect on U.S.
agricultural exports to the region. The EU is already putting
increasing pressure on the candidate countries to adopt EU regulations,
particularly in the area of SPS measures and technical barriers to
trade (TBT). In response, FAS will continue to work to ensure that the
acceding countries do not adopt SPS/TBT policies or regulations that
will disadvantage U.S. exporters during the transition period leading
to full EU membership. In addition, FAS will focus particular attention
on areas where the United States would be entitled to compensation from
the EU for market losses attributable to higher border protection
resulting from EU accession. We will also look for opportunities during
the new round of WTO negotiations to maintain or improve market access
for U.S. agriculture in this region.
Americas
We are active in negotiations to establish a free trade zone in the
Western Hemisphere, under the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas.
The FTAA negotiators are meeting regularly with the goal of achieving a
new hemispheric trade agreement by 2005.
Also in this region are two of our three largest agricultural
markets--our neighbors and partners in the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), Mexico and Canada. Trade into these countries often
faces a plethora of policies and programs potentially detrimental to
continued access. We will continue to monitor and enforce our rights
under the NAFTA and various side agreements as well as coordinate
compliance with our obligations under these accords.
Other trade policy activities will include monitoring the tendency
of several countries in the region to introduce ``price bands'' on
primary commodities (a form of a variable levy), as well as unjustified
phytosanitary restrictions on our wheat in Brazil. We will use the
Cochran Fellowship Program to reinforce the U.S. position on these
issues to senior level Latin American agricultural policy makers.
We also will continue to alert exporters to the potential of the
Latin American market, the fastest growing region for U.S. agricultural
exports, by stepping up our marketing activities. Efforts by our
offices in this region last year met with great success and high praise
from participants.
FAS will continue to build relationships in the Caribbean through
its Cochran Fellowship Program, which offers technical assistance and
training activities for potential foreign buyers. Following a Cochran
training activity in 1999, the U.S. Meat Export Federation reported
sales of U.S. lamb to Barbados, a market that has been essentially
closed to U.S. food and agricultural products because of its close ties
to France.
In Central America, FAS is monitoring reconstruction and
agricultural production in the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch. We will
improve our monitoring of the reconstruction of the agricultural
sectors, which affects regional food security. We will also be
providing critical food safety improvement assistance to help these
countries build their food distribution and processing centers so that
they agree with U.S. standards.
Last year, FAS administered CCC donations of wheat under Section
416(b) totaling 200,000 metric tons and valued at $31 million to the
Governments of Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala. An
additional 45,000 metric tons of corn valued at $6 million also was
donated to the region under Section 416(b). Sales proceeds are being
used by the governments for post-hurricane reconstruction efforts.
In Brazil, USDA will monitor and report on the expansion of crop
areas into the Cerrados region of Brazil's Center West. Farmers in this
region are rapidly expanding soybean area, which will have a
substantial effect on U.S. soybean production, prices and trade.
Africa
FAS will continue to encourage economic reform, market
liberalization, and infrastructure development in the African
countries, emphasizing to African officials the importance of meeting
their current WTO obligations and commitments. We will also look for
common interests during the new round of WTO negotiations and work
together to improve global market access for agriculture.
In particular, FAS will address the growing number of sanitary and
phytosanitary (SPS) issues with our African trading partners, stressing
the important difference between justifiable science-based food safety
measures and protectionist non-tariff barriers. Efforts will be made to
demonstrate how science-based measures can protect human, animal, and
plant health with minimal trade disruption. In addition, we will offer
technical assistance on understanding and complying with the WTO SPS
Agreement to enable these countries to have improved access to world
markets.
FAS will also continue to engage African countries in a dialog on
the important advantages of biotechnology in agriculture. We will
encourage discussions at several levels, from broad high-level reviews
to detailed working-level scientific exchanges.
Of all of the regions of the world, Africa remains the most
threatened by food insecurity. FAS has, with USAID and the Department
of State, developed a three pronged approach to implement the U.S.
Action Plan on Food Security, released in 1999. FAS will initiate a
pilot project on food security in Sub-Saharan Africa. This will include
providing U.S. technical and policy assistance to Ethiopia/Eritrea to
expand the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
Special Program on Food Security. FAS will also be helping local
governments create national food security plans to promote long-term
rural development, improve trade, and reduce malnutrition.
On the market development side, FAS plans to expand the Cochran
Fellowship Program to three new countries in the Sub-Saharan Region,
bringing the total number of Sub-Saharan participants to11. The goals
are to develop agricultural systems to help these nations meet domestic
food needs, and to strengthen trade linkages with the United States.
These endeavors are paying off in terms of U.S. trade. For the
first time in 1999, a Senegalese company imported U.S. frozen chicken
and meat. The participant intends to purchase two containers per month,
the value of which is estimated at over $200,000 per year.
In Africa, USDA will increase its monitoring of agricultural
sectors to enhance the USAID's Famine Early Warning System. This will
help us assist these countries make the transition form subsistence to
market economies. And we will continue to coordinate our food aid
programs with USAID's Public Law 480, Title II programs.
We will continue to foster research and scientific exchanges in
this region. Both the United States and countries in Africa benefitted
last year from 24 research and scientific exchanges under the FAS-
administered Scientific Cooperation Research Program involving U.S.
scientists and 11 African countries. Projects include providing
alternatives for small farmers; improving seedless mandarins for new
domestic and international markets; using natural enemies for
biological control of stemborers, which cause more than $1 billion in
damages to U.S. crops each year; and preventing introduction of exotic
pathogens on the Protea flower in a multi-million dollar industry with
tremendous growth potential for farmers in both the United States and
Africa.
BUDGET REQUEST
There is no question that today's budget environment requires us to
prioritize our activities. Adjusted for the ICASS base transfer, which
was implemented in fiscal year 1998, the level of funding available to
FAS has essentially remained unchanged from fiscal year 1997, forcing
FAS to again absorb unavoidable wage and price increases in fiscal year
2000. The combined impact of the fiscal year 2000 Federal pay raise and
higher overseas costs resulted in a $5.6 million shortfall in the FAS
operating budget. Addressing this shortfall required FAS to adopt the
following stringent fiscal measures:
--Savings of $1.0 million from closing or downsizing six overseas
offices. (Closing Bern and Agricultural Trade Offices (ATOs)
Milan and Jeddah, and downsizing Ukraine and ATOs Hamburg and
Tokyo. Additionally, ATO Singapore will be closed at the end of
this fiscal year which will save $.9 million in fiscal year
2001);
--Savings of $1.6 million from a 50-percent reduction in marketing
activities conducted through FAS offices overseas;
--Savings of $2.0 million from a 25-percent reduction in domestic
discretionary spending such as travel, training, supplies and
equipment; and
--Savings of $1.0 million from up to a 5 percent reduction in current
U.S. employment levels to be achieved by continuing a hiring
freeze and offering an early retirement opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2001 budget proposes a funding level
of $117.9 million for FAS, excluding $27.5 million for the Cooperator
Program, which is now funded through CCC. In addition to partially
funding the fiscal year 2001 pay raise, the budget proposes a modest
increase to support several agency initiatives including:
--$750,000 and 8 staff years for market access compliance and
negotiation activities. U.S. agriculture made groundbreaking
progress in the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade
negotiations, improving world market opportunities for U.S.
agricultural products by an estimated $5.17 billion during the
implementation period. However, this has led to a sharp
increase in FAS' trade compliance workload including monitoring
implementation of numerous trade liberalization provisions by
other countries and ensuring their compliance, negotiating
agreements with countries seeking to accede to the World Trade
Organization, and developing harmonized rules of origin for
customs purposes. The onset of new multilateral negotiations on
agricultural trade is expected to increase our current market
access workload even further.
The requested funds will support additional staffing needed to meet
this heavier workload and to fund technical expert participation from
other USDA agencies in international consultations, particularly
related to food safety and biotechnology issues, and to contract for
technical expertise as needed to work effectively with foreign
regulators.
--$1,500,000 and 12 staff years to open three new ATOs in priority
markets that offer significant growth for U.S. exporters over
the next 5 to 10 years. These markets include:
--Mexico (a new ATO in Monterrey and an ATO satellite office in
Guadalajara $400,000) Increased FAS representation in the
banking and northern trade center of Mexico will allow the
United States to take advantage of U.S. exporters'
proximity and the market access provisions of NAFTA. A
presence in western Mexico will allow the United States to
take advantage of the expanding hotel, restaurant, and
institutional trade in the region and in Mexico's second
largest city. Mexico is currently the third largest, single
country market for U.S. agricultural exports.
--Canada (new ATO in Toronto $550,000): Significant trade
opportunities exist for small-to medium-sized U.S.
exporters in our second largest, single country market.
This new office would form the hub for an enhanced market
development effort targeting new exporters in the United
States.
--Philippines (new ATO in Manila--$550,000): The Philippines is the
9th largest foreign market for U.S. agricultural goods,
importing $730 million of U.S. agricultural products in
fiscal year 1999. An ATO in Manila will make further
inroads into this major market and protect U.S. interests
from major nearby competitors such as Australia.
--$618,000 for funding of the FAS attache office in the American
Institute in Taiwan (AIT). Citing budgetary pressures, AIT is
proposing to shift the funding responsibility for direct and
indirect costs to resident agencies that historically have been
funded through the AIT contract with the Department of State
(DOS). The AIT contract is funded through appropriations made
to DOS. Because DOS will no longer fund the costs of other
agencies through its contract with AIT, an additional $618,000
will be needed to maintain the FAS Agricultural Attache Office
at the AIT.
Responding to conference report language directing the Department
to develop a plan for establishing an account to manage overseas
currency fluctuations, the budget proposes the establishment of an
overseas buying power maintenance account. Under this proposal, up to
$2 million of the FAS annual appropriation shall remain available until
expended solely to offset fluctuations in international currency
exchange rates.
EXPORT PROGRAMS
Mr. Chairman, the export promotion, food assistance and foreign
market development programs administered by FAS are key to expanding
global market opportunities for U.S. agricultural producers. Our
program proposals provide the tools to meet these new sales
opportunities.
Export Credit Guarantee Programs.--The budget includes a projected
overall program level of $3.8 billion for CCC export credit guarantees
in fiscal year 2001. As in previous years, the budget estimates reflect
actual levels of sales expected to be registered under the programs
rather than authorized program levels. Of the total program level, $3.5
billion will be made available under the GSM-102 program and $101
million will be made available under the GSM-103 program. For supplier
credit guarantees, the budget includes an estimated program level of
$150 million and an estimated program level of $40 million for facility
financing guarantees.
Foreign Market Development.--The budget includes $27.5 million for
the Foreign Market Development (Cooperator) Program, unchanged from
last year. As a means of providing stability for future program
activities, funding for the Cooperator Program is now provided through
CCC rather than the FAS appropriation.
The budget also proposes $2.5 million in funding from CCC for the
Quality Samples Program. Under this program, samples of U.S.
agricultural products are provided to foreign importers in order to
promote a better understanding and appreciation of their high quality.
The Quality Samples Program is carried out through private sector
organizations.
Market Access Program (MAP).--The budget provides funding for MAP
in fiscal year 2001 at the maximum authorized level of $90 million,
unchanged from fiscal year 2000.
Public Law 480.--For fiscal year 2001, the budget includes a total
program level for all titles of Public Law 480 food assistance
activities of $1.017 billion, which is expected to provide
approximately 2.9 million metric tons of commodity assistance. As was
the case last year, the budget requests no specific level of funding
for Title III grants; however, current authorities provide that up to
15 percent of the funds of any title of Public Law 480 may be
transferred to carry out any other title.
Export Enhancement Program (EEP).--World supply and demand
conditions have limited EEP programming in recent years. However, the
fiscal year 2001 budget does include a program level of $478 million
for EEP, the maximum level authorized by the Agricultural Trade Act of
1978. In addition, proposed legislation will be submitted in
conjunction with the budget that will authorize the Secretary of
Agriculture, in the last quarter of the fiscal year, to reallocate
unobligated EEP funding for use in carrying out U.S. foreign food
assistance activities, including Public Law 480 and Food for Progress
programs, and for purchasing commodities to replenish the Food Security
Commodity Reserve, and to assist the CCC in conducting market
development activities.
Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP).--The budget assumes a DEIP
program level of $66 million for fiscal year 2001, below the current
estimate for fiscal year 2000 of $119 million. The projected decline in
DEIP programming is the result of two factors: full implementation of
the Uruguay Round export subsidy reduction commitments and the phase
out in June 2000 of the so-called ``rollover authority'' that allows
countries under certain conditions to exceed their annual export
subsidy commitments by drawing on unused subsidy authority from
previous years.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I will be glad to answer
any questions.
COCHRAN FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM
Senator Cochran. I appreciate your comments on that issue.
While you are at the table, I noticed in your prepared
statement, which we have included in the record now, you talked
about introducing record numbers of agricultural policymakers
around the world to U.S. products and policies during this last
fiscal year, and you plan to meet and exceed that record this
year. You mentioned the Cochran Fellowship Program. And I must
say that I had an opportunity to meet with agriculture consuls
or attaches in two North African countries, where I travelled
with Senator Stevens and other members of the Appropriations
Committee recently.
They were telling us how effective that program has become.
It was a new program in those areas and they were very excited
about the prospects for developing new relationships and using
that as a way to improve cooperation in a number of different
areas of interest with those countries and people and
businesses in those countries.
You point out that 800 Cochran fellows from 70 emerging
markets participated in courses that introduced them to U.S.
products. And I assume that is an annual figure, is it not? And
that was just in 1999?
Mr. Galvin. Yes, sir, just in 1999. That was a record year.
You are correct, it has been a very successful program for
about 15 years now. It has led, I think, to a lot of examples
where we have seen increased U.S. exports and benefits in the
area of trade policy. One thing that we have seen in the last
couple of years is that we have really been able to use the
program in an effort to help us address some of the pressing
trade policy problems that we face today. And I think, in
particular, of the biotech issue that continues to cause us
great problems.
To give a specific example there, we used the Cochran
program last year to bring in 15 technical specialists,
scientists and policymakers, from Eastern Europe, to educate
them on our system here in the U.S. for ensuring that biotech
products are safe and offer substantial benefits and that sort
of thing. We currently have in the planning stage a similar
type effort directed toward Southeast Asia. That part of the
world is still somewhat open to biotech, and we want to make
sure that we meet with the appropriate policymakers there to
ensure that the door remains open to biotech products.
I should also mention that one of the other current major
topics that we face right now is in the area of food safety,
not just in the U.S. but of course worldwide as well. We
currently have in this country a Cochran team of 15 or 20
individuals from more than seven countries. They are here to
learn about the U.S. food safety system, learning about things
such as the HACCP approach to inspection and that sort of
thing. That delegation arrived here about a week ago, and they
will be here through much of March, learning about the U.S.
food safety system and hopefully taking those lessons back to
their own countries.
Senator Cochran. That is interesting. And I wonder if you
could, for the record, give us a report, over the period of
time that the program has been in operation, what the figures
are in kind of a summary form. I do not want to put anybody to
any extra trouble, but if you have those in your computers and
can press a button and gin them up without too much difficulty,
that would be helpful to have in the record.
Mr. Galvin. Yes, sir, we would be glad to try to do that.
[The information follows:]
COCHRAN FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM
The Cochran Fellowship Program has received funding from three
sources: direct appropriations, funds from FAS' Emerging Market Program
for specific countries, and funding from USAID for activities in the
New Independent States. The following table provides the number of
participants by country and by funding source since the program started
in 1984.
PARTICIPANT LEVELS BY COUNTRY AND BY FUNDING SOURCE, 1984-1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerging USAID
Appropriations market Freedom Total
program Support Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asia:
China.................................................. 283 4 ........... 287
Hong Kong.............................................. 47 ........... ........... 47
Indonesia.............................................. 68 ........... ........... 68
Korea.................................................. 211 ........... ........... 211
Malaysia............................................... 191 ........... ........... 191
Philippines............................................ 88 ........... ........... 88
Singapore.............................................. 113 ........... ........... 113
Taiwan................................................. 99 ........... ........... 99
Thailand............................................... 171 ........... ........... 171
Vietnam................................................ 2 68 ........... 70
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 1,273 72 ........... 1,345
======================================================
Non-EU Europe:
Albania................................................ .............. 54 ........... 54
Bosnia................................................. 6 ........... ........... 6
Bulgaria............................................... 54 64 81 199
Croatia................................................ 22 22 ........... 44
Czech Republic......................................... 56 57 119 232
Estonia................................................ 27 19 ........... 46
Hungary................................................ 85 41 34 160
Latvia................................................. 24 21 ........... 45
Lithuania.............................................. 21 20 ........... 41
Malta.................................................. 2 ........... ........... 2
Macedonia.............................................. 3 ........... ........... 3
Poland................................................. 212 137 200 549
Romania................................................ 31 26 ........... 57
Slovakia............................................... 45 64 ........... 109
Slovenia............................................... 36 37 ........... 73
Turkey................................................. 359 ........... ........... 359
Yugoslavia............................................. 94 ........... ........... 94
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 1,077 562 434 2,073
======================================================
Latin America and Caribbean:
Brazil................................................. .............. 13 ........... 13
Caribbean Islands...................................... 68 ........... ........... 68
Colombia............................................... 130 ........... ........... 130
Costa Rica............................................. 12 ........... ........... 12
Chile.................................................. 16 ........... ........... 16
El Salvador............................................ 2 ........... ........... 2
Guatemala.............................................. 8 ........... ........... 8
Mexico................................................. 639 ........... ........... 639
Nicaragua.............................................. 5 ........... ........... 5
Panama................................................. 57 ........... ........... 57
Trinidad/Tobago........................................ 96 ........... ........... 96
Venezuela.............................................. 283 ........... ........... 283
Other LA Countries..................................... 2 ........... ........... 2
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 1,318 13 ........... 1,331
======================================================
Africa and Middle East:
Algeria................................................ 82 ........... ........... 82
Cote d'Ivoire.......................................... 162 2 ........... 164
Ghana.................................................. 5 1 ........... 6
Iraq................................................... 78 ........... ........... 78
Kenya.................................................. 17 3 ........... 20
Morocco................................................ 1 ........... ........... 1
Namibia................................................ .............. 6 ........... 6
Nigeria................................................ 2 3 ........... 5
Oman................................................... 4 ........... ........... 4
Senegal................................................ 14 3 ........... 17
South Africa........................................... 5 104 ........... 109
Tanzania............................................... 3 2 ........... 5
Tunisia................................................ 46 ........... ........... 46
Uganda................................................. 11 3 ........... 14
Other Africa Countries................................. .............. 17 ........... 3
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 430 144 2 560
======================================================
NIS:
Armenia................................................ .............. 25 55 80
Azerbaijan............................................. .............. ........... 33 33
Belarus................................................ .............. 20 20 40
Georgia................................................ .............. 16 38 54
Kazakstan.............................................. .............. 60 88 148
Kyrgyzstan............................................. .............. 24 69 93
Moldova................................................ .............. 11 87 98
Russia................................................. 3 297 245 545
Tajikistan............................................. .............. 2 42 44
Turkmenistan........................................... .............. 15 50 65
Ukraine................................................ .............. 114 121 235
Uzbekistan............................................. .............. 20 83 103
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... 3 604 931 1,538
======================================================
Total.................................................. 4,101 1,379 1,367 6,847
Percent of total......................................... 60 20 20 ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Galvin. I should mention that the total funding for the
program is about $5 million. About half of that comes from
direct appropriations, another million or so comes from our
emerging markets program. That is, I think, an example of where
we have really married the two programs in a very positive way.
The balance comes from AID funding.
Mr. Schumacher. If I may, Tim.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Secretary?
Mr. Schumacher. Since 1984, nearly 7,000 mid- and senior-
level people have participated in this program from over 70
countries. And of course, as I travel around, I see the
extraordinary benefit.
But I want to emphasize again what Tim said on the
biotechnology and food safety issues, which are going to be so
important in the future for our trade. More and more of these
have been coming in. And studying our HACCP systems, studying
how the biotechnology is benefitting not only our country but
how it could benefit their countries' food needs, as Senator
Durbin so eloquently put it, they are going to be ratcheting up
in many of these countries, they need to adapt and adopt some
of these new technologies for the future. Coming here, with the
Cochran program, has worked really well--7,000 have benefitted.
Senator Cochran. I have received word from some other
members of Congress, who have been in these countries who are
participating in the program, how some have formed what they
call Cochran clubs. And they bring together on a regular basis
the alumni who have participated in the program and they talk
about their experiences and also just stay in touch. And they
are serving as catalysts for better communication and
understanding of the U.S. and its market economic system and
our democracy and food production techniques that can help
improve trade for us and also benefits that are widely shared
because of the program throughout the world.
Well, I appreciate your work on the program and your
continued support for looking for ways to use it to benefit our
interests as well as the interests of the countries that are
participating.
CAPACITY BUILDING
Mr. Galvin. If I may, Mr. Chairman, just one other example,
because this is an issue that we hear a lot about from
developing countries. And that is the whole issue of capacity
building. It is an issue that we hear quite often in the WTO
context, when developing countries say they are a little bit
leery of trade liberalization because they just do not have the
capacity to implement TRQ's and tariff reduction schedules and
that sort of thing.
Last year, we also had a very good program in Africa on the
WTO and the Codex system and how these developing countries can
come to have a better understanding of how to implement their
obligations as WTO members or as Codex members. And it was
extremely successful and one that we would like to continue as
well.
COTTONSEED ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, I was pleased with your announcement that
you are going forward with the cottonseed assistance program.
You mentioned that just before the hearing began. Could you
tell us how the Department intends for the program to work and
when the signup will occur and what the payments are that can
be expected?
Mr. Schumacher. Yes. I would ask Parks if he could come to
the table. He has worked very hard, with Keith Kelly, to get
this up and running in a timely fashion. And maybe he could
just take us through briefly how the program is going to
operate.
Mr. Shackelford. Well, sir, as the release carefully
states, until we have the regulations out, this is not final.
However, I can at least talk about what we propose to do.
This year is somewhat unique in that virtually all of the
cotton gin in the U.S. was classed by the AMS. So we hope to be
able to run this program in a much simpler manner than some of
the programs where we have to go through major signups. We hope
to take the AMS data, which is provided in specific form, use
that to determine basically a list of the bales, provide that
data in letter form to the gins, get them to verify it, and
then make the payments based on that data. So it should be very
simple, and we should not have to go through the whole signup
process and much of the trouble we have had before.
We will estimate a seed-to-lint ratio to basically
determine the tons of seed per bale and probably just make
those payments based on the number of bales ginned by each
particular gin. The payments will go to the gins, to the first
handlers, with the understanding that they will be shared with
the producers where it is appropriate, where ginning charges
were increased, for example.
Senator Cochran. We appreciate that information, and we
hope you will let us know if you encounter any problems, just
like we will let you know if we hear of any problems.
Mr. Shackelford. Yes, sir, you will. Thank you.
EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS
Senator Cochran. Mr. Secretary, as you know, we had a $9
billion emergency assistance package last year, signed by the
President. What are the expectations on when the final payments
are going to be made and whether progress is being made as you
envisioned in getting the funds out to the producers and those
who are beneficiaries of this program?
Mr. Schumacher. I am going to ask Keith to comment. But I
think what I would like to do is just summarize very briefly.
And if I may, I will give you a written report tomorrow or the
next day, because we have 22 programs and it would take a fair
bit of time to go through all of them.
Senator Cochran. That is fine.
[The information follows:]
FSA Implements New and Ad Hoc Assistance for Farmers
NEW PROGRAMS IN 2000
Supplemental PFC
Crop Disaster Program (CDP)
Rice LDP
1 Year Honey Recourse Loan Program
1 Year Mohair Recourse Loan Program
Mich. Peaches
Peanut Program
Tobacco Program
Livestock Assistance Program (LAP)
Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP)
Dairy Market Loss Assistance Program II
Tobacco Warehouse Disaster Comp.
LIP for Contract Growers (CG-LIP)
NAP Non-Trigger Areas
Harney County, Oregon Flood Comp.
Florida Citrus Canker
Cottonseed
Oilseed
Pasture Restoration Program (PRP)
Farm Storage Facility Loan Program
Commodity Certificates
Lamb Program
Mr. Schumacher. Of course, the AMTA payments went out very,
very quickly last fall. We have closed the signup now on the
disaster payments. We will be uploading those in the next few
weeks. Advance payments are going out on the disaster programs
for that. And let me just look at my notes.
Senator Cochran. When do you expect those payments would go
out?
Mr. Schumacher. In about 3 or 4 weeks, I hope. As soon as
we can get the upload done and we get the factor, we can get
those payments out. Farmers have received, according to my
notes here, advance disaster payments of about $170 million so
far. But that does not reflect a lot of the late signups. So
when we go through the register I expect that will be much more
as we process the last filers, the people who registered last
Friday. We will finalize their paperwork this week.
I think honey and mohair have gone very well. We are
working well on the tobacco and peanuts. And tobacco in
Kentucky is 96 percent paid out. In the livestock assistance
program, we have got 80,000 farmers that have applied for $141
million, as of January 18th. So that is working reasonably
well.
In the livestock indemnity program, the dairy market loss,
we hope to get that out in mid-March. Those are the major ones.
We have just discussed cottonseed. The oilseed program, that is
a difficult one. Signup is now under way. The postcards have
gone out already and we have got the training done. That is
moving forward.
I have talked about the farm storage and the pasture
restoration. So, by and large, I think we are reasonably well
on schedule. I think oilseeds will be the one that will be most
difficult to administer. We have done the training. The staff
are going to be working on that. The farmers will be coming in
to get signed up.
Senator Cochran. Can you provide an estimate of the
percentage of qualifying losses that will be covered by the
crop loss portion of this package?
Mr. Schumacher. Not at this time, sir.
IMPACT OF DISASTER ASSISTANCE
Senator Cochran. Dr. Collins, I know you are the
prognosticator here. Where would our farm economy be if these
funds had not been made available to producers?
Mr. Collins. Well, over the past 2 years we have made
available a total of some $15 billion, which represents a
tremendous portion of what people had as net farm income.
Without that--kind of the obvious--we would have had a credit
crisis.
Senator Cochran. A lot of bankrupt producers?
Mr. Collins. Absolutely. In fact, we saw a surprising thing
over the last couple of years. We have seen the number of farms
in the United States actually go up, in 1998 and 1999. I do not
think we would have seen that. And I think particularly among
the commercial operations, we would have seen a sizable
decline.
It is hard to correlate credit stress with declines in farm
numbers, because sometimes it takes several years, because
people will pay out of their savings account, they will sell
off assets, and so on. But I think, if not in 1999 or 2000,
certainly in 2001 or 2002 we would have seen a sharp drop in
farm numbers had we not made the kind of payments that were
made over the last 2 years. There is no doubt that a lot of
people would not have been able to extend their loans or
qualify for credit, particularly in 1999, had we not made these
payments.
Senator Cochran. Yes, sir, Mr. Secretary, go ahead.
Mr. Schumacher. A lot of those payments, of course, went
out to program crops. But if I may add, Senator Gorton
mentioned the apple industry. For example, in a number of
Eastern States, there were difficulties in 1998 with
pollination, and farmers have written me personal letters
indicating that if it was not for the disaster program passed
by your committee and Congress in 1998, tens of those family
apple orchards would have gone out of business, and were
basically saved by the disaster program that was put in place.
Senator Cochran. You were maybe both here when Secretary
Glickman discussed whether the countercyclical payments
proposed by the Administration as part of this budget would be
beneficial as the disaster programs that we already passed. Dr.
Collins specifically testified that no analysis had been
conducted on whether there would be any geographical bias in
the distribution of payments. That was a concern that I had at
the time.
I wonder if you have had an opportunity to look further at
that question. I was suggesting that with the payment
limitations specifically that cotton and rice producers were
going to be treated unfairly under this Administration's
proposal. Have you had a chance to look at that and do any
analysis of it?
Mr. Schumacher. I have not done a geographic analysis but I
have done a commodity analysis and a farm size analysis. And I
would say that probably I would not use the word bias, I would
say that the distributions would be different than they would
be under an AMTA payment payout, for example. Your sense about
cotton and rice I think is accurate. One of the things that we
reported under our supplementary assistance proposal was that
there are about 30,000 entities, persons, in the United States
that would not be eligible for payments under that proposal
because of the $30,000 payment limit. That is about 2 percent
of all the persons in the United States.
However, for cotton, it would be about 7 percent of all the
cotton persons, of which there are over 100,000. And for rice,
it would be about 22 percent of all the rice persons who would
not be eligible because they already get $30,000 or more in
payments. So it certainly hits differentially cotton and rice,
a problem that regular payment limits would have for cotton and
rice, as well.
Secondly, I would say that if you compare the distribution
of payments under the supplementary assistance proposal to that
under AMTA payments, you would find that proportionally more
payments would go to wheat, slightly more to rice, and fewer
payments would go to feed grains and cotton under the
Administration's proposal as opposed to AMTA payments. That
reflects the changes in farm income from one crop to another
crop, and with wheat and rice having sharper drops in farm
income, that triggers a little bit higher proportion of the
payments going to them.
Senator Cochran. Has there been any analysis of farm size
and efficiencies and whether or not that ought to be considered
when a program of this kind is developed? Are you going to
legislate some sort of government policy on farm size by
imposing a limitation as suggested by this program?
Mr. Collins. I do not see how this legislates a farm size.
I think we have payment limits now for AMTA payments, for
marketing loan gains and LDP's. We have had payment limits for
other programs as well. This simply is another payment limit in
the longstanding tradition of payment limits on payment
programs. The difference here is that this one tends to be a
little bit tighter.
That means that large producers that were receiving fairly
large payments would not be eligible. I do not know that that
mandates a particular farm size. It turns out, if you look at
the data, those producers that get the largest payments also
tend to have the highest farm incomes. And so, to some extent,
they have deeper pockets for dealing with a downturn in the
farm economy than some of the medium-sized producers.
I think the issue here was that there was a finite amount
of money to spread around. And for that reason, a little bit
tighter payment limit was advocated.
PRICE IMPACT OF CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Senator Cochran. The Administration's proposal includes
expansion of a number of different reserve programs, like the
conservation reserve, wetlands reserve, other environmental and
conservation programs, all of which are good programs, and some
of which I authored. The WHIP program, for example, was
authorized by Congress based on legislation that I had
introduced. So I am in favor of these programs.
My question is: What impact would you predict the expansion
of these programs in the way the Administration requests would
have on commodity prices, if any?
Mr. Schumacher. Can I address part of that, and then
perhaps Keith Kelly and Keith Collins can expand.
There are five programs that we have asked for, and I will
walk through them very quickly. Concerning the farmland
protection program, we have asked for $65 million to cost-
share. Many parts of the country are really pushing very, very
hard. Whether it is California or some of the mid-Atlantic
States or the Northeast, they were putting in substantial
amounts. And they would like some cost-share, in a modest
sense, for farmland protection. I do not see that having any
major impact on commodity prices. It will most certainly help
family farmers stay in business during tough times.
Neither the WHIP nor the EQIP would have a significant
impact on commodity prices. Perhaps, Parks, you can assist me
on the wetlands reserve, a modest program; and, Keith, on the
4-million-acre expansion of CRP, a fairly modest impact, I
would think, if any.
Mr. Collins. Probably about half of that acreage, half of
the 4 million, would compete with the principal eight program
crops. And so you might be talking about a reduction in
plantings of a million or two acres at the most. And, that
would be phased in over a multi-year period as well. So I think
the impact of that is quite small. There would be some, but it
would be pretty small.
Mr. Schumacher. And the additional one, of course, is the
conservation security program that we propose for $600 million
in this budget. And that I think is a very important issue that
we would like to continue to work with you on. Because I think
that, as I indicated earlier, would not only help heartland
agriculture, including rice and cotton, but also help dairy
farmers as they try and deal with plunging prices, in terms of
giving them some support for runoff control. It would help
livestock operators as well. So I would hope you would consider
that as you do your markup, Senator.
Senator Cochran. So the benefits would be in spending that
would go to farmers or landowners that are controlled in these
conservation programs? They would not get any benefit from
increased commodity prices, then, would they?
Mr. Collins. I think the price effects would be quite
small. I think the main benefits would be to help producers be
better stewards of the land, to promote sustainable agriculture
objectives, and to lower their costs of production in doing so.
And in the case of the conservation security program, probably
provide producers some benefit over and above and beyond the
mitigation costs of environmental problems. So there would be
some direct income effect from the conservation security
program, cost-reducing effects from the other programs, and a
very, very limited effect on prices from the CRP program.
PROPOSED CROP INSURANCE LEGISLATION
Senator Cochran. Let me ask you about crop insurance. I
know Mr. Ackerman was up a little while ago answering questions
from Senator Kohl and maybe others. But the Agriculture
Committee here in the Senate is going to consider legislation
regarding crop insurance. We have a number of bills pending
before the committee. I have cosponsored a couple of them, so I
have got two bases covered anyway.
What have you concluded with respect to the legislation
that we are going to be considering? And do you have any
favorites among the three? I guess there are three major bills,
the Lugar bill, then there is the Kerrey-Roberts bill, and
there is the Cochran-Blanche Lincoln bill. And I am sponsoring
also the Lugar bill. I do not want to get crossed up with the
chairman here right off the bat.
Mr. Ackerman. Well, Senator, it has been a little hard to
keep score of all of them, and they have been changing a lot
the last couple of days. We have seen some drafts that have
come out just within the last day on some of these different
proposals. I understand there will be meetings going on up
until the 11th hour before the markup.
Generally what we would like to see is certain basic
objectives accomplished in a crop insurance bill. We put our
proposals on the table, because after the last couple of years,
there have been problems with crop insurance. I have been at
farmer town meetings in about 20 different States, and you hear
certain problems repeated time and time again about the crop
insurance program--that the buy-up policies are too expensive,
that we do not cover enough crops, that there is a problem when
farmers have multi-year losses, that we do not cover enough of
the specialty crops, that farmers do not have enough
information to make good decisions, that there are problems
with the NAP program.
Those half dozen themes get repeated time and time again on
crop insurance, even with the gains we have made. What we would
like to see is a bill come out of this process. I should say
that, number one, we would like to see a bill come out of this
process that will actually deal with the issues. And number
two, for that bill to deal with those half dozen key problems
with crop insurance--making it more affordable, dealing with
the multi-year issue, providing more funding for research and
development for specialty crops and new programs, risk
management education, fixing the NAP program, and so on.
In the different bills before the committee, some deal with
these problems more than others--some have different focuses.
We have tried to avoid getting too hung up on which vehicle the
committee is going to mark up because there are a lot of
factors the committee is looking at. But we are looking at
something that will accomplish these objectives.
IMPACT OF LEGISLATION ON BUDGET
Senator Cochran. What impact would the passage of any of
these bills have on the budget request for the Risk Management
Agency and the Farm Service Agency?
Mr. Ackerman. I could tell you that for the Risk Management
Agency, it would have a very significant impact. For example,
just taking one provision by itself, the research and
development for specialty crops--and all of the bills are very
similar on this one point--the vision is to make available $10
million, $20 million, or $30 million for researching new
programs. All of those programs, once they are developed and
they come in, will have to be processed by RMA. They will have
to be reviewed, will have to be added into our computer systems
and we will have to develop accounting systems for them.
That will create need for more administrative budget. What
the exact numbers are, we have not calculated because the bills
are a moving target. But clearly it will have an impact.
Mr. Schumacher. The same thing on FSA. I think some of the
language we have seen has some requirements for the Farm
Service Agency and I understand, Dennis, there has been no
provision made for assisting on the staffing for that either.
So on both RMA and FSA, in the language I have seen so far,
there has been no provision to assist in any implementation of
this.
ADMINISTRATIVE CONVERGENCE
Senator Cochran. Let me ask about the issue of
administrative convergence of the Farm Service Agency, Rural
Development, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. In
your written statement to the committee, you state that by
streamlining the administrative services for these three
agencies, the Department will be able to conserve resources. In
what dollar amounts are these savings going to be realized? Do
you expect to achieve predictable or concrete savings by this
convergence?
Mr. Schumacher. Certainly in the longer term. And Dennis,
maybe you and Keith can outline where we are on the support
services. In the effort we have been making to get savings, for
example, in Iowa or Alabama, where we have some procurement of
vehicles, we can share vehicles among all three agencies, and
it would be very helpful indeed. Just saving the procurement
costs would be of great benefit. That will take some time to
work through. We think there will be some significant savings
over time through administrative convergence.
And perhaps, Keith, you can expand on that.
Mr. Kelly. Senator, since FSA has been right up against a
wall with employment, we have been a strong advocate of
administrative convergence all along because we have been
struggling for the last couple of years to deliver programs.
And what we saw, and we still see, is the advantages of
administrative convergence to do all of the back room type
things. It is hard to understand why we and RD and Natural
Resources cannot use the same documents for procurement and for
some of these other things. That has to have some major cost
savings, especially with regard to a common computing
environment. I think the CCE would be the most obvious example
of that.
And those efficiencies have to get translated back into
savings, with the idea that they are going to free up resources
and give us some help to do a better job in the struggle that
we have had on the program side. So, yes, I clearly do think
that there would be some cost savings all the way through on
this.
Senator Cochran. But has anybody quantified it?
Mr. Kelly. Senator, there were efforts to quantify it
during the development of the Support Services Bureau, in the
report that was brought up here last year. It was quantified at
the same time we were doing the downsizing. The quantification
really was showing us trying to stay within the employment
targets. As far as an exact dollar estimate, we would have to
get that for you if there was one, because I do not know if
there were any specific dollar figures for that.
Senator Cochran. What is the status of the initiative?
Where are we? What have you done?
Mr. Kelly. As you can see in the statement that I have
presented for the record, we are still supportive of moving
forward with this. And we are asking the committee to take a
look at that language and work with USDA, again, across all
three mission areas, to try and see if we cannot join the
modern world. And again, the IT, the computer information
technology, is clearly our biggest concern because we do not
have a very good common computing or a current computing
environment out there at all.
And the lack of that is very costly and inefficient for us
in whatever we do. I think that was discussed in some hearings
up here last year, the idea of e-commerce and e-trade and e-
mail and things like this that we can do over the computer
network--we are a long ways from that.
Mr. Schumacher. We were disappointed, quite honestly, Mr.
Chairman, that it was taken out of the budget last year. It was
not authorized and appropriated. We just think it is good
business practice, when you have people serving the same
farmers, to be in the same offices and to have some cost
savings just by merging the administrative units there. There
was some opposition to that. You and I both know where the
opposition was. There was opposition in a number of areas.
But I think we just have to move forward and, in the 21st
century, look at these new management techniques for keeping
costs down.
DONATIONS OF SURPLUS COMMODITIES
Senator Cochran. With more than a third of the fiscal year
gone, why is USDA not moving more aggressively to exercise its
authority under the CCC Charter Act to provide donations of
surplus commodities to countries in need? With commodity prices
still as low as last year and financial difficulty for farmers
as severe as ever, why should USDA hold back or be reluctant to
act? Will USDA reach last year's Section 416(b) levels?
Mr. Schumacher. We have worked very hard on that. I am the
chairman of the Food Aid Policy Council. We have had a number
of interagency meetings to move this agenda. We announced a
month or so ago the 3 million ton 416(b) allocations. I
outlined those earlier in my testimony.
If we have additional demands on the 416(b), where we can
place the humanitarian need, we will certainly do that. And I
have outlined, for example, that Mozambique may be one area. We
are going to monitor that very, very carefully. We will come
back to meetings of the Food Aid Policy Council when we see
additional demands being made and to utilize the 416(b)
effectively and efficiently.
PUBLIC LAW 480
Senator Cochran. This is a question that relates to the $1
billion appropriations level for Public Law 480 Title II.
Current year funding is estimated to be $967 million, and the
average amount disbursed for Title II since fiscal year 1993 is
$906 million. Section 416 cannot be relied upon to make up the
difference, since the types and levels of commodities vary year
to year and often are not available at all. Yet the
Administration is requesting only $837 million for Title II for
fiscal year 2001.
How will the U.S. maintain its commitments and be prepared
to meet emergency needs without higher Title II appropriations?
Mr. Schumacher. Well, as we indicated earlier, we used
quite a bit of 416(b) this last year for wheat, and that
diminished the need for a call on the Public Law 480. So we
have some rollover. Maybe, Mr. Fritz, you could expand further
on how we see that in the future.
Mr. Fritz. If I may, Mr. Chairman, going back to your
earlier question, I will tell you that we are in the process of
negotiations with recipient countries and the World Food
Program on the 416(b) programs that were approved recently.
Some of those agreements will be signed very soon. Others, of
course, will take further negotiations and stretch out into the
spring and summer. But that process has actually begun with a
number of countries and organizations, as well as the PVO's.
With regard to Title I and Title II of Public Law 480, as
Mr. Schumacher pointed out, we have used 416 in place of Title
I, especially to meet our needs. For Title II, which is
administered by AID, there is sufficient money to meet this
year's obligations. There is also the ability to transfer some
money between Titles, including Title III which was zeroed out
within the budget. But we feel we are sufficient for this year
and, if need be, would come back and, with the further
indulgence of the Congress, look at funding levels for outyears
when 416 is not available.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Cochran. I appreciate very much your cooperation
with our committee. We have been here a couple of hours now and
we thank you for your patience and your handling of all of our
questions. I know there will be additional questions we will
submit. We hope you can respond to them in a timely way.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Agencies for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE FARM SERVICE AGENCY
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Question. The Department will propose legislation to expand the
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
(WHIP), the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the
Farmland Protection Program (FPP) and the Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP). This proposed ``Farm Safety Net Initiative'' includes an
additional $1 billion in mandatory spending over authorized levels to
enhance these conservation programs. Currently Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) funds for administrative support services is capped
at the 1995 level of total allotments and transfers to Federal and
State agencies (the so-called Section 11 ``cap''). This limitation
affects the amount of dollars used for conservation technical
assistance. How does this limitation affect the conservation technical
assistance currently available for each of the mandatory conservation
programs?
Answer. The Section 11 cap severely restricts CCC's ability to fund
technical assistance for conservation programs. Proposals in the Farm
Safety Net Initiative reflected in the fiscal year 2001 President's
Budget total nearly $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2001. Funds for
technical assistance are included in most program levels and would not
be subject to the Section 11 cap, such as for EQIP and the Conservation
Security Program. As part of this legislative proposal, funds for
Conservation Reserve Program, Farmland Protection Program, and Wetlands
Reserve Program technical assistance, to be exempt from the CCC Charter
Act Section 11 cap, in the amount of $75 million, are requested for
fiscal year 2001.
EMERGENCY LOANS
Question. The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for
emergency loans is $150 million. According to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's 2001 Budget Summary, this proposal reflects funding to
accommodate the expansion of eligibility to larger farms through
Treasury loans, and to close the eligibility gap with the Small
Business Administration (SBA) emergency loans. What is the current gap
in eligibility for emergency loans between the USDA and SBA programs?
Answer. Existing statutes prohibit the SBA from providing disaster
loans to any agricultural enterprise. The FSA emergency loan program is
presently limited to family farms. The net result is that larger than
family farms (those farms which require substantial labor beyond that
required by the family and exceed the size of a typical farm in the
community) and certain agricultural-related businesses cannot receive a
disaster benefit that smaller farms receive.
Question. Does this legislative proposal have a related cost?
Answer. A major component of the program cost is the subsidizing of
the difference between the interest rate charged to the borrower and
the Government's cost to borrow. All borrowers in the current program
pay a subsidized interest rate of 3.75 percent. Under the proposed
legislation an estimated 30 percent of borrowers (large farmers) would
pay an interest rate equal to the Government's cost of borrowing, and
small farmers (70 percent of borrowers) would continue to pay a
subsidized interest rate of 3.75 percent. As a result, the subsidy cost
of the program would be reduced by a small amount.
FARM LOANS
Question. Mr. Secretary, in your opening statement, you mention
that USDA has streamlined its guaranteed loan making regulations in
order to encourage more private lenders to participate in the program.
What is the difficulty that private lenders have had with participating
in the guaranteed loan program?
Answer. In the past, lenders have been hesitant to participate in
FSA's guaranteed loan program because of the perception that the
program was cost prohibitive due to the time and paperwork required to
apply.
Question. What changes did the Department make in the regulations
that will encourage increased private lender participation?
Answer. The streamlined guaranteed loan regulations give lenders
increased flexibility and make the rules more consistent with standard
procedures in the banking industry. The new regulation reduces
requirements for loans of $50,000 or less. For these applications, FSA
requires limited supporting documentation and historical data. The only
forms needed to apply are an FSA application, balance sheet, and cash
flow statement.
We also implemented a Preferred Lender Program (PLP) for lenders
experienced with the FSA guaranteed loan program. Under PLP, FSA
approves the lender's system of credit management, and the lender is
then able to obtain a guarantee under a simplified process tailored to
each lender's own policies. To apply for an FSA guarantee, the PLP
lender submits only a one-page signed form and a narrative addressing
certain credit criteria. The guarantee is automatically approved if FSA
does not take any action within 14 days of receiving a complete
application.
We also increased flexibility in our collateral and servicing
requirements. We now permit the subordination of direct loan security
in favor of a guaranteed loan when specific indicators, such as cash
flow and equity, are at a level that indicates sufficient financial
strength. In addition, we allow the subordination, exchange, or release
of collateral when in the borrower's and Government's best interest.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SLADE GORTON
Question. Apples were mentioned specifically in the $1.2 billion
disaster package of last year, but unfortunately for many, the loan
program instigated and proposed by the USDA did not provide the kind of
aid some apple producers sought. In most cases, Washington growers were
facing a surplus of commodity and therefore a surplus purchase by USDA
would have proved beneficial. Instead, the Department imposed a ``one-
size-fits-all'' loan program to all producers nationwide who
experienced disaster. Unfortunately, it was brought to my attention
recently that USDA is not honoring loan applications submitted by apple
growers for ``quality loss'', although that provision was stipulated in
the law. Can you respond to the concern by orchardists that this is the
case?
Answer. The 1999 Crop Disaster Program compensated producers for
crop losses due to adverse weather conditions. The program did not
authorize payments to producers in compensation for low prices due to
``flooded'' markets. The 1999 program is a ``production and quality''
loss program as opposed to a ``market loss'' disaster program.
FSA pays apple producers for quality losses under the 1999 Crop
Disaster Program (both insured producers and those without apple
insurance). Producers who market apples in the lower priced
``processed'' market receive credit for the difference in price.
Quality losses count toward the minimum 35 percent loss threshold under
the disaster program.
In Washington State, the disaster payments are based on prices for
fresh apples of $4.25 per box and for processed apples of $1.19 per
box. The prices used under the 1999 Crop Disaster Program are
historical averages and may not always be reflective of current market
prices.
Question. Also included in the disaster package last year was a
specific call to the Farm Service Agency to review all loan programs
that could be utilized by apple growers and report back to Congress
what, if any, changes needed to be made in order to assist these
producers. How is that review coming and when should we receive a
response?
Answer. We have created an interagency team to review the
Department's programs for the apple industry. As soon as this review is
completed, we will provide you the results.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Question. Projections are dismal at best for the vast majority of
America's farmers and ranchers. The Supplemental Income Assistance
Program appears to take a heavy amount of analysis. Is this a long-term
program, and will it go away when prices return?
Answer. The supplemental income assistance program, by its design,
is a long-term program that only provides benefits when revenues are
low. When prices are relatively high, there would be less need for the
program, unless widespread crop losses reduced revenues beyond the
proposed threshold of 92 percent of the 5-year average.
Question. When producers seem to prefer the Marketing Loan
Assistance programs, why isn't that a viable option?
Answer. The supplementary payments were designed to supplement the
marketing loan assistance program.
Question. You have likened your proposal to a chair with four solid
legs. I don't think this counter-cyclical income support plan has a leg
to stand on. It provides only $6 billion over the next 3 years. Last
year alone, the emergency package totaled $8.5 billion. Prices are not
expected to go up. How do you expect $6 billion to help all the farmers
in this country?
Answer. I am willing to work with Congress on funding levels given
current budget constraints.
Question. This plan is not designed to replace AMTA. It's a good
thing. With the $40,000 payment limit in effect already, many of my
Montana farmers are not eligible. I know my State is not alone in that
problem. When 18 percent of farmers in this country account for 85
percent of production, you simply cannot cut them out of the plan. I
realize this plan is designed to help the small farmer. I am all for
that. But don't eliminate the agricultural producers who are producing
the lion's share of commodities. How did USDA arrive at the assumption
that only 8 percent of producers in this country would not be eligible
for this program?
Answer. The Administration's $30,000 payment limit proposal would
limit supplemental assistance to some very large family and non-family
farms. We estimate that the payment limit would make about 2 percent of
all producers ineligible to receive supplemental assistance under the
Administration proposal and an additional 6 percent of producers would
have their supplemental assistance reduced. By reducing payments to the
very largest producers, more payments can be targeted to smaller
producers that are generally more financially vulnerable and have lower
incomes. The Administration's payment limit proposal could increase the
amount of supplemental assistance going to small- and medium-size
family farmers by more than 20 percent.
Question. USDA's new farm income proposal is supposed to be
designed to help small farmers, saying the majority will be eligible
for payments up to $30,000. The majority of farmers in Montana are NOT
going to be eligible for that payment. Why is the Administration trying
to push out the medium-sized farmer?
Answer. The Administration's proposal is targeted at both small-
and medium-size farms. Most producers in Montana will receive
supplemental payments, even though farms tend to be large in this
State.
Question. You say in your testimony that government farm policy
cannot keep lurching from one expensive bailout to another. I agree
with you 100 percent. However, I fail to see how this proposal prevents
another bailout. What assurances do farmers have that this proposal
will protect their income and keep them farming?
Answer. No proposal can offer farmers a guarantee that they will
remain in business. This proposal does offer farmers the assurance
that, on average, payments will be made when gross revenue falls below
92 percent of historical levels.
Question. This proposal increases CRP acres from 36.5 million acres
to 40 million acres, meaning there will be more contracts to
administer. The staff levels allocated will not be able to handle that
increased workload. How does USDA intend to cover the shortage in
staff?
Answer. Expansion to 40 million acres would require some additional
workload requirements at county offices. However, using the projected
end-of-year acreage enrollments under the proposal, annual acreage
increments do not reflect large signups in any one year, and FSA
staffing impacts would likely be minimal, or could be absorbed. The
Administration has proposed increased NRCS technical assistance funding
to administer the higher CRP enrollments.
Question. It appears that the Administration is putting a heavier
emphasis on the conservation side of their proposal, when we more
truthfully have an economic emergency across the countryside. Why is
this emphasis so heavy when we need to spend our time and money on
trade and economic issues?
Answer. An enhanced conservation initiative, which proposes to
increase conservation spending by $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2001, is
included as part of the Administration's proposal to strengthen the
farm safety net. This represents 23 percent of total farm safety net
spending proposed by the Administration for fiscal year 2001. The
Administration believes this to be a crucial part of achieving the dual
objectives of protecting this country's precious resources for our
future generations, while improving the income security of farmers
during these troubling economic times. Through these USDA programs,
farmers and ranchers can receive cost-share assistance, technical
assistance, and annual payments for installing and maintaining high-
priority conservation activities, such as soil and water quality
protection, wetland restoration, wildlife habitat enhancement, farmland
protection, and comprehensive nutrient management.
Question. You have said that this proposal contains a plan for
stabilizing the crucial USDA workforce that has become over-stressed
the last 3 years. I haven't seen any evidence that it will lessen
workloads or increase staffing levels. How does it stabilize the
workforce?
Answer. The budget provides for maintenance of current levels of
permanent full-time staff in FSA for 2001, with some reduction in
temporary staff. Funds for continued modernization of our information
systems and business processes are also requested to improve program
delivery productivity in the long term. Fluctuations in workload due to
emergency conditions and new programs will require adjustments in the
level of temporary staffing, however.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HERB KOHL
Question. The high capital costs of farming coupled with the
current low market prices is creating extreme difficulty for young
people wishing to enter farming. In addition, census information has
shown that the average age of today's farmers is rapidly approaching
that of retirement. Please describe the activities of the Department,
including loan programs, to assist beginning farmers.
Answer. FSA is providing substantial financing to beginning
farmers. In fiscal year 1999, the number of direct and guaranteed loans
provided to beginning farmers increased by 25 percent compared to
fiscal year 1998. FSA assisted over 8,400 beginning farmers with loans
and loan guarantees in fiscal year 1999. Between fiscal years 1994 and
1999, FSA provided loans totaling $2.5 billion to more than 34,000
beginning farmers.
In addition, the Secretary has established an Advisory Committee on
Beginning Farmers and Ranchers which will provide counsel to the
Secretary on ways to coordinate financial assistance (Federal and State
programs) to beginning farmers, encourage State participation, and
maximize the number of new farming and ranching opportunities.
Question. To what extent and in what way do these programs work to
encourage non-traditional farming activities?
Answer. FSA encourages family farmers to utilize all available
resources to maximize their farm income. An example of this was the
policy decision to allow FSA loans to be made for the production of
ratites. FSA does not preclude the financing of other enterprises for
which a reliable market exists and the farm customer has the necessary
training, experience, or educational background to ensure a reasonable
prospect of success.
Question. Do demographic indicators suggest that introduction of
new farmers to farming is keeping pace with the number of farmers who
are either retiring or simply leaving the occupation and if not, in
what ways do you think this condition will alter the structure of U.S.
agriculture?
Answer. Despite the achievements of FSA in assisting beginning
farmers with loan assistance to purchase and maintain farming
operations, regrettably, the number of new entrants into farming is
falling over time. This shrinkage is attributable to the depressed
economic conditions in the farm economy, increased productivity of
farmers that requires fewer producers to maintain the same production,
and better employment opportunities in today's strong general economy.
Still, the typical path to farming is entry through the family farming
business.
As you know, the Secretary has expressed strong concern about the
need for strong, diverse family farm agriculture. Current economic
conditions and trends combined with governmental policies appear to be
driving the industry in the opposite direction, toward fewer, larger
farms. The result has significant implications for the farm economy,
rural America, and the Nation's food supply. These implications are too
extensive to discuss here, but I would hope as the authorizing
committees review the Secretary's proposals and conduct hearings, a
policy consensus will emerge. Hopefully, these policies will encourage
and promote entry into farming by young people.
STATE MEDIATION GRANTS
Question. The budget includes an increase for the State Mediation
Program. Please provide information that suggests the level of savings
to both the public and private sector that has been achieved through
the use of this program.
Answer. The majority of cases handled by mediation would have gone
directly to the appeals process or civil courts if certified mediation
had not been available. Savings to the Federal Government is apparent
when mediation results in a restructured loan which offers a greater
return than net recovery buyout. Mediation also saves staff time and
effort by quickly resolving the dispute outside of the appeals or court
system. The National Appeals Division (NAD) published its 1999 budget
to be $13.363 million to administer its typical 3,500 cases. Those
figures suggest that NAD's cost per case is approximately $3,817. The
average cost of a mediation case is $500.
The Marketing and Economics Division at the Alabama Department of
Agriculture and Industries reported in its annual report that their
benefit-to-cost ratio for agricultural mediation is estimated to be $8
in benefits for every $1.00 of mediation costs. The Oregon Department
of Agriculture reported in its annual report that the benefit-to-cost
ratio was estimated at $2.56 to $1.00 for mediation program
expenditures. The annual funding for mediation has been $2 million to
$3 million for the State Mediation Program. A high range of annual
Federal savings, using the Alabama benefit-to-cost of 8 to 1, is $21
million. A low range of annual Federal savings, using the Oregon
benefit-to-cost of 2.56 to 1, is $3.12 million.
Legal fees and costs for administering or selling a property
through foreclosure or bankruptcy and the added costs of maintaining a
non-performing asset on the books that are often avoided by mediation
are difficult to estimate and are not included in these estimates. The
Nebraska Department of Agriculture Farm Mediation Program reported in
its annual report that ``A significant amount of money is saved by the
parties using mediation (the attorney fees, alone, for a person in
bankruptcy average between $3,500 and $7,500)''. The Iowa Mediation
Service (IMS) reported in its annual report that savings for other
creditors can also be presented in terms of legal savings. Using a cost
projected at $75 per hour for legal fees, IMS reported that the savings
on each case exceed $350. Similarly, IMS reported that farmers are not
using lawyers for many of these cases and the savings can be applied to
debt service.
Question. Given the current state of the farm economy, can you
quantify an increase in the demand for this program?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, 22 States requested $3,703,508 in
matching mediation grant funds. Only $2 million was available and
qualifying States received a pro-rated share, or about 60 percent of
their request. This fiscal year, 24 States requested $4,106,526 and
received 79 percent of their request from the $3 million appropriated.
State mediation programs continue to be bare-bones operations that
depend on the mediation grants to operate. Adding to the financial
restrictions is an increased case load for the program. The additional
case load will place a greater burden on existing funds and the ability
of the States to effectively and efficiently provide mediation services
to USDA.
FSA has received inquiries from new States interested in obtaining
USDA certification and funding, including Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi and Montana. We anticipate certifying
at least five additional State mediation programs if funds are
available. Because of the potential and need for new certified State
mediation programs and the additional case load USDA is experiencing,
the demand can be estimated at $4.95 million. That figure is based on
the following:
[In millions of dollars]
Existing State requests........................................... 4.10
New State mediation programs...................................... .85
______
Total....................................................... 4.95
Question. The budget request for fiscal year 2001 calls for a
substantial decrease in the program level of USDA farm credit programs.
Although part of the loan levels for fiscal year 2000 were included as
part of an emergency farm package, the farm economy has not recovered
and it is reasonable to assume that credit needs are no less than they
were a year ago. Please provide information, by type of farm loan
activity, on the backlog of credit applications on hand.
Answer. Supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal
year 2000 have allowed FSA to fund all viable applications and to fund
new requests as they are received. There is no backlog of approved
applications awaiting funding. Since FSA anticipates entering fiscal
year 2001 without a backlog of applications, the budget request is
expected to be sufficient.
Question. Please provide a projection of the actual farm credit
needs for which USDA programs could be utilized in fiscal year 2001.
Answer. The following table provides farm loan program needs and
proposed funding in the President's Budget for fiscal year 2001.
[The information follows:]
Direct Farm Ownership................................... $128,000,000
Guaranteed Farm Ownership............................... 1,000,000,000
Direct Farm Operating................................... 700,000,000
Guaranteed Farm Operating............................... 3,000,000,000
Emergency Disaster...................................... 150,000,000
Indian Land Acquisition................................. 2,000,000
Boll Weevil Eradication................................. 100,000,000
SHARED APPRECIATION AGREEMENTS
Question. Farmers in Wisconsin are concerned that certain Shared
Asset Appreciation (SAA) agreements which they entered into as a
condition of credit relief during the farm crisis of the 1980's may be
especially burdensome now during the current price downturn. I
understand that an extension has been granted in some of these cases
until 2002 and that a further rule on the subject is nearing
publication. Please provide an overview of the status of SAA claims.
Answer. Currently, over 10,600 debt writedowns with Shared
Appreciation Agreements (SAA) have been processed since 1989. Of this
total amount, over 4,200 agreements have been triggered or matured. The
debt to be recaptured from SAAs must be suspended, amortized, or repaid
at maturity if other factors have not previously made the recapture
amount due. Approximately 1,200 SAAs will mature in 2000 and
approximately 388 will mature in 2001. Regulations are in effect that
permit a 1- to 3-year deferral of SAA obligations. Further, proposed
regulations permitting non-program loans to repay SAA obligations at
concessional interest rates were published in November 1999.
Question. If the soon-to-be-published rule includes an elimination
of capital improvements from the calculation of appreciation, will such
a provision be retroactive for capital improvements that were incurred
since execution of the original SAA agreement?
Answer. Yes the provisions will be retroactive for capital
improvements made since the original SAA agreement was entered into.
However, the new rule will apply only to SAA's which are currently
suspended or not yet due. The new rule will not apply to SAA's which
have already been repaid.
Question. When do you expect publication of the final rule?
Answer. It is in the Agency and Departmental clearance process and
will be published on or about May 31, 2000.
Question. What is USDA doing in anticipation of the expiration of
the current extension in the event the farm economy has not properly
recovered or that enforcement of the agreements then would place an
undue hardship on farmers?
Answer. SAAs maturing in the year 2000 may be suspended for up to 3
years if necessary because of the borrower's inability to make the
payments due to low commodity prices or natural disasters. Also, the
balance owed may be amortized over a period of 25 years. The rate of
interest equal to 25 basis points above the cost of money to the
Government (also known as the Homestead Protection Rate) will be used
once the new rule is published.
USDA/SBA EMERGENCY ``ELIGIBILITY'' GAP
Question. Secretary Schumacher's statement mentions a proposal by
USDA to close the ``eligibility'' gap between USDA and SBA emergency
programs. Please provide details of this proposal and your definition
of the ``eligibility'' gap.
Answer. In recent years agriculture has experienced significant
consolidation, with a net result of fewer, larger farmers. Most of
these farms are family owned, even though the operation has grown
beyond the point that the family can operate the farm by themselves.
Current statutes require that FSA lend to only family size farmers.
Therefore, when natural disasters occur, these larger operations are
precluded from receiving FSA loan assistance. The Small Business
Administration (SBA) is statutorily prohibited from lending to
agricultural enterprises in disaster areas. Thus, larger than family
size farms (those farms which require substantial labor beyond that
required by the family and exceed the size of a typical farm in the
community) are unable to receive disaster benefits that smaller farms
receive. Most of these larger farms would receive SBA disaster loans if
they were any other kind of business. Additionally, SBA classifies any
business with a Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code of
agriculture as ineligible for SBA disaster loans. Any business dealing
with animals including tropical fish, dog kennels, and horse boarding
and riding operations are currently ineligible under SBA guidelines and
FSA does not consider them to be eligible operations either. There are
a large number of businesses which are not farming operations but have
a SIC code of agriculture and therefore no disaster assistance is
available to them. For the two reasons cited above, a gap exists
between the eligibility requirements of the two programs.
FSA has drafted legislation which would allow emergency loans to
larger than family size farms and certain agriculture-related
businesses. Financing non-agricultural businesses even if animals are
involved, such as dog kennels or production of lab animals, is being
refused on both legal and programmatic grounds by SBA. Congress could
aid this process resolving this issue explicitly in the law once it is
proposed.
Question. Is the provision in the Administration's fiscal year 2000
supplemental request which calls for language to allow Emergency
Conservation Program funds to be used for farm structure repair fall
into that category since that has been a discrepancy between USDA and
SBA programs?
Answer. The Administration proposed language allowing ECP to be
used to repair farm structures and equipment to address the unmet needs
of farmers that suffered damages from Hurricanes Floyd, Dennis, and
Irene. Many of the producers affected by these natural disasters are
low-income and lack sufficient financial resources to purchase
insurance on farm structures and equipment. Most farm structures and
equipment are covered by USDA loans (damage to non-agricultural
equipment and buildings are covered by SBA loans), but many of the
affected producers run small operations or are low income and cannot
assume additional debt in addition to the losses they already have
sustained.
Question. Why does the supplemental request to allow ECP funds for
structure repair apply only to damages relating to Hurricanes Dennis,
Floyd, or Irene and not other similar needs resulting from other
natural disasters that have occurred since these hurricanes?
Answer. No other recent natural disaster has affected as many
producers and caused as much damage as Hurricanes Dennis, Floyd, and
Irene. These hurricanes created an enormous need for many different
types of assistance, including financial assistance to repair
structures and equipment. Because many producers were already facing
significant crop and livestock losses, the Administration believes that
additional assistance to repair structures and equipment is necessary
to protect these farms' viability, many of which are small, family
operations.
Question. The President's budget request includes $11.5 billion in
new farm spending through 2002 of which a sizable portion is identified
for obligation in the current fiscal year. Has legislative language for
this initiative been forwarded to the Congress and if not, when do you
expect to propose it?
Answer. Our target was to get a first draft of the legislative
language by March 1st. We were able to accomplish that, and now the
language is in final clearance within the Department. I cannot
specifically say when you will receive the language, but I can tell you
that you will have the language in time to act on our proposal. Our
overriding goal is to provide Congress with a useful document and to
get this legislation in your hands in a timely fashion.
Question. Since fiscal year 2000 is nearly half over, what strategy
do you intend to employ to see that farm benefits related to the Farm
Safety Net Initiative will be available to farmers yet this year?
Answer. If the necessary legislation is enacted timely for the
Supplemental Income Assistance Program, we will begin to make payments
this summer.
GRAIN STORAGE LOAN PROGRAM
Question. Earlier this month Secretary Glickman announced a Grain
Storage Loan Program. However, I understand publication of the final
rule for this program is some time away even though harvests are not
far off. How soon does USDA plan to have this program implemented?
Answer. Our target implementation date is June 1, 2000.
Question. In order to make this program available in a timely
fashion, is it anticipated that it may be made retroactive in order to
cover construction of storage facilities that may occur between now and
publication of the final rule?
Answer. We are publishing an interim rule with a request for
comments. We cannot make the program retroactive to cover any storage
structure that has been started before publication of the interim rule.
Question. If the program is made retroactive, how will farmers be
informed of the opportunity?
Answer. The program will not be retroactive.
DAIRY ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS
Question. $125 million was provided as emergency payments to dairy
producers in the Fiscal Year 2000 Apropriations Act. I understand that
these payments are to be distributed in a manner similar to payments
for dairy producers last year. However, I am aware of certain instances
in which the program, as announced by USDA for fiscal year 2000,
presents some inequitable results.
For example, I am aware of a farmer in Wisconsin who began milking
cows in the last few weeks of 1998. Therefore, USDA does not view him
as a new farmer in 1999. However, as a result of this determination,
his production for 1999 will be based only on what he produced in 1998.
In other words, USDA will not consider him a new farmer in 1999 (and
therefore eligible for special treatment under this program for
purposes of his actual 1999 production) but will instead consider his
production for all of 1999 to be the same as the previous year. In this
case, he will be given credit for production in 1999 of only a few
weeks of production when, in fact, he has been in production all 52
weeks. Does USDA have plans to provide relief for a farmer in
situations as the one I described above and if so, what form of relief
and in what fashion?
Answer. USDA has become aware of what appears to be an inequitable
circumstance with regard to the Wisconsin dairy farmer who began
production in December 1998. The affected farmer's case is under review
and a decision will be made shortly.
FSA OFFICE SPACE
Question. As the USDA field structure continues to reorganize, the
relocation of office space is inevitable. I am aware of an instance in
Winnebago County, Wisconsin, in which a previous contract for
relocation of USDA offices had been executed with local authorities
which was going to result in savings for all agencies involved.
However, I understand a subsequent ruling was made by the Department
regarding a limitation of space within an office which would disqualify
the arrangement already made between FSA and others in the county.
Consequently, higher costs, disruption of services, and frustration
with federal agencies by the community will all result.
In addition, the square footage requirements for USDA Service
Centers also do not account for the space needs of temporary employees.
This is an increasing concern given the growing importance of temporary
employees as permanent service center staff are reduced just as program
demand is growing. Please explain if the physical space limitation is
purely arbitrary or if there are allowances for exceptions in special
cases.
Answer. USDA space standards (DR-1620-2) are mandated by the
Department and are an attempt by the Department to ensure a consistent
policy for all USDA agencies. Due to feedback from our field offices,
FSA has been working with the Department and other USDA Agencies to
amend DR-1620-2 and develop USDA space requirements that are more
realistic. Until the Department publishes these revised guidelines, FSA
has developed an interim policy to offer immediate relief to the
current overcrowding in field offices. FSA has delegated authority to
its State Offices allowing them to grant individual county offices an
exception to the current USDA space standards.
Question. Has USDA considered allowing flexibility in square
footage requirements under lease agreements to account for space
requirements for temporary employees?
Answer. FSA does allow flexibility and changes within their space.
FSA space standards for county offices allow each office to acquire
office space for temporary and part-time employees.
COUNTY OFFICE STAFFING
Question. For fiscal year 2000, Congress provided the budget
request for FSA salaries and expenses and provided up to an additional
$56 million to assist in the delivery of the farm emergency package
approved last year. Please describe the current needs of FSA staffing
in completing the fiscal year 2000 activities including both those of
permanent and temporary employees.
Answer. FSA funding for fiscal year 2000 is sufficient to maintain
all Federal employees and county level non-Federal permanent staff.
However, in an effort to provide timely delivery of programs and to
handle producer requests, FSA will likely spend most funding available
for temporary staff years in the first 6 months of the fiscal year, and
a majority of these employees will be off the rolls by mid-March.
Although these temporary employees have allowed the Agency to remain
current on most workload, we expect continued high program and payment
workload during the last 6 months of the fiscal year. FSA is working
with the Department to review additional fiscal year 2000 supplemental
funding. Supplemental funding would permit the Agency to pay for more
temporary staff years to assist in implementing over 20 new emergency
disaster provisions and also to possibly increase the speed in which
producer payments, including loan deficiency payments, are made timely
in coming months.
Question. To what extent is the need for improved information
technology essential to the delivery of farmer services at the county
level and how does that need compare to that of retaining personnel?
Answer. Improved technology is essential to improving and speeding
the delivery of farmer services at the county level. FSA currently
spends about $35 million per year operating and maintaining its
``legacy'' A/36 computers. These computers were a sound investment
which have served America's ranchers and farmers well over the years,
but are unable to meet today's program requirements. These machines
were designed before the Internet and before databases were common in
mid-range computers. As a result, the data on these computers are
isolated. They are not directly available to the Service Center partner
agencies, other USDA, Federal or State agencies and they are not
available to the public. As a result, these computers will not support
E-commerce and are not capable of otherwise taking advantage of the
common computing environment investments already made and those to be
made soon. These operating system concerns are as critical as our need
to retain FSA personnel to carry out ongoing and ad hoc workload
associated with the continued farm crisis.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD
CATTLE FARMER AMENDMENTS
Question. An $8.7 billion emergency assistance package was attached
to the Fiscal Year 2000 Agriculture Appropriations bill. A portion of
these funds were intended for a Livestock Assistance Program, a
Livestock Indemnity Program, a Dairy Indemnity Program, and a pasture
revegetation program. When can farmers expect to receive assistance
from these programs?
Answer. LAP and LIP payments have been distributed with a payment
factor established at .46 of the eligible payment amount. Original
funding for LIP would have been adequate to pay all claims. LAP funding
was insufficient to cover all claims and pooling of LIP and LAP
resulted in the payment factor of .46 for all claims under both
programs.
The Pasture Recovery Program signup period is March 20-April 14.
Payments can be made upon certification of completion of reseeding
which must take place after signup. No payments will be made until it
is determined if a payment factor will need to be applied. Signup
reports are expected to be received on April 21. Funding would cover
maximum allowable payments to about half of the eligible producers.
The 2000 Dairy Market Loss Assistance Program is an extension of a
similar program from fiscal year 1999. Additional signup was taken
through February 28, 2000, with participants of last year's program
automatically included in the extension of the program. Determination
of a payment factor should be in process and payment distribution
should begin soon.
Question. Has a sufficient sum of money been provided for these
programs to ensure that farmers will receive the full amount that they
are eligible to receive under these programs?
Answer. LIP had sufficient funding. LAP did not. PRP and DMLA
funding adequacy is not known yet.
Question. Does the amount of funding for these programs meet the
need for these programs?
Answer. Funding for the LAP program does not appear to have been
adequate to compensate for the feeding needs to make up for large
losses of grazing forage due to drought. LIP funding was adequate
because much of the livestock lost was owned by contract production
firms that do not meet the gross annual income limitation for program
eligibility.
DROUGHT
Question. In 1999, all 55 counties in West Virginia were declared
disaster areas due to losses caused by drought. Nationwide, 1,942
counties have been declared disaster areas due to losses by drought,
with the most recent declarations occurring in Kansas and Texas. What
progress is the U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency
making to update national drought loss estimates?
Answer. FSA does not formally estimate future crop year losses by
disaster program. FSA does monitor drought conditions and attempts to
anticipate funding needs for Emergency Conservation Program and
Emergency (EM) loans plus human resource needs to staff service centers
and perform crop loss appraisals in impacted areas.
Question. When will updated drought loss estimates be made
available to Congress?
Answer. FSA does not formally estimate future crop year losses by
disaster program. FSA does monitor drought conditions and attempts to
anticipate funding needs for Emergency Conservation Program and
Emergency (EM) loans plus human resource needs to staff service centers
and perform crop loss appraisals in impacted areas.
Question. Will the U.S. Department of Agriculture be submitting a
request for additional emergency assistance for farmers suffering
drought-related losses?
Answer. It is premature to address this issue. Only if a drought
develops during the growing season and as the extent of losses become
more apparent can this question be answered.
Question. What preparations are being made should there be a
drought again this year?
Answer. Standing FSA-administered programs are available and
currently being utilized by producers in geographic areas with recently
planted or maturing crops impacted by drought. Available programs
include: Emergency Conservation Program, Emergency Haying and Grazing
of CRP lands, Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program, American
Indian Livestock Feed Program and Emergency Loans. We would also expect
prudent farmers to practice good risk management by buying crop
insurance and planting drought resistant varieties.
The National Drought Policy Commission (Commission), chaired by
Secretary Glickman, will be submitting a report to the President and
Congress to provide advice and recommendations on the creation of an
integrated, coordinated Federal policy designed to prepare for and
respond to serious drought emergencies. The Commission's draft report
is currently available on the Commission's website, http://
www.fsa.usda.gov/drought, for public review and comment. The comment
period will close on March 31. The final report will be submitted in
May to give this Congress the opportunity to propose meaningful
legislation that will help to reduce and mitigate the impacts of
drought.
Question. Farming in the Northeast (USDA's definition of Northeast
includes West Virginia) accounts for 6 percent of U.S. farm numbers and
8 percent of rural agricultural production values but receives just 1
percent of direct payments and Federal crop insurance payments to
producers. I am concerned that the hardworking West Virginia farmer is
not receiving a fair portion of assistance provided by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. What factors contribute to the discrepancy
between amount produced and assistance received?
Answer. As you indicated, West Virginia receives a relatively small
portion of Federal assistance payments to farmers compared with other
States based on the total value of agricultural output. Over the
previous 5 years, the total value of agricultural output has averaged
$504 million, which is 0.23 percent of the national total. For the
value of crop production, the relative total is only 0.07 percent of
the U.S. total because the crop portion of total agricultural output in
West Virginia averaged 14 percent, compared with the U.S. average of 42
percent. However, because most of the direct payments made to producers
are made to crop commodities, West Virginia's share will be relatively
low. Further, crop insurance participation in West Virginia is low
relative to the rest of the country. In 1999, only 51 percent of
eligible acres were insured.
Historically, direct payments to producers in West Virginia have
reflected the relative value of crop production. That is, West Virginia
crop producers have received 0.07 percent of the direct payments which
mirrors the relative proportion of the crop value output indicated
above. Further, the 1997 to 1999 history of loan deficiency payments,
marketing loan gains, production flexibility contract payments and
market loss assistance payments shows that the payments made on
eligible acres in West Virginia are commensurate with the national
level. (See Tables 2 and 3, attached.) For instance, in 1998, West
Virginia had LDP's paid on 0.023 percent of the national total LDP
payment acres for wheat, corn, barley, oats and soybeans. Meanwhile, it
received 0.025 percent of the total national LDP payments (Table 2).
Likewise, in both 1998 and 1999, West Virginia had PFC payments made on
.042 percent of total U.S. PFC payment acres and received .039 percent
of the total national PFC payment (Table 3). In other words, given the
amount of acreage that qualifies for these government benefits, West
Virginia is, in fact, receiving a proportionate share of the payment
pie.
[The information follows:]
TABLE 2.--A COMPARISON OF LDP AND MLG QUANTITIES AND PAYMENTS BETWEEN WEST VIRGINIA AND THE UNITED STATES TOTAL
[In thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 LDPs 1997 MLGs 1998 LDPs 1998 MLGs 1999 LDPs 1999 MLGs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
Quantity Payment Quantity Payment Quantity Payment Quantity Payment Total Quantity Payment Quantity Payment
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia:
Wheat................... .......... .......... 9.27 $0.74 281.95 $114.89 62.46 $35.78 298.17 $191.96 12.85 $4.89
Corn.................... .......... .......... 230.69 66.28 1486.73 331.19 372.17 41.06 2180.90 523.80 4.00 0.12
Barley.................. .......... .......... ............ .......... 98.94 17.23 34.14 7.34 134.65 27.87 19.95 1.38
Oats.................... .......... .......... ............ .......... 117.49 52.29 ............ ............ 48.74 23.93 ............ ............
Soybeans................ .......... .......... 29.12 12.23 232.73 85.60 98.67 87.53 348.63 347.45 ............ ............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total West Virginia... .......... .......... 269.08 79.25 2,217.84 601.20 567.44 171.71 3,011.09 1,115.01 36.80 6.39
===================================================================================================================================================================
Total United States:
Wheat................... 94.70 $23.78 56,888.04 15,662.08 1,412,674.31 413,951.80 229,846.76 62,220.62 1,881,256.17 881,392.23 42,263.75 19,808.97
Corn.................... 5.16 1.39 420,455.66 97,927.04 5,692,310.65 1,001,809.02 1,424,442.93 378,573.46 7,104,468.61 1,956,919.37 192,474.22 35,358.93
Barley.................. 63.09 6.53 12,810.41 2,062.86 258,999.21 78,609.63 20,274.65 3,920.56 198,190.97 36,208.97 4,183.76 595.60
Oats.................... 4.86 0.58 443.85 69.84 105,149.07 19,096.87 3,198.84 489.66 119,547.54 27,653.09 615.87 138.53
Soybeans................ 0.43 0.18 53,031.06 15,804.35 2,130,748.35 882,537.48 317,066.37 336,878.17 2,233,327.99 2,053,857.98 57,655.11 54,372.89
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.............. 168.24 32.46 543,629.02 131,526.17 9,599,881.59 2,396,004.80 1,994,829.55 782,082.47 11,536,791.28 4,956,031.64 297,192.71 110,274.92
===================================================================================================================================================================
Other................... 153,426.29 2,781.07 1,200,619.45 28,049.09 4,141,428.17 404,105.40 2,329,044.18 259,274.20 3,746,484.29 1,125,797.24 3,961,569.96 896,831.31
===================================================================================================================================================================
Total United States... .......... 2,813.53 ............ 159,575.26 ............ 2,800,110.20 ............ 1,041,356.67 .............. 6,081,828.88 ............ 1,007,106.23
===================================================================================================================================================================
Percent, West Virginia/Total .......... .......... 0.049 0.060 0.023 0.025 0.028 0.022 0.026 0.022 0.012 0.006
United States for Wheat,
Corn, Barley, Oats,
Soybeans...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 3.--A COMPARISON OF PRODUCTION FLEXIBILITY CONTRACT (PFC) ACRES AND PAYMENTS AND MARKET LOSS ASSISTANCE
(MLA) PAYMENTS BETWEEN WEST VIRGINIA AND THE U.S. TOTAL
[In thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 PFC 1998 PFC 1999 PFC
------------------------------------------------ 1998 MLA -----------------------
Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
Quantity Payment Quantity Payment Payment Quantity Payment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia............... 76 $2,813 76 $2,229 $1,107 75 $2,117
Total United States......... 176,612 $6,288,268 180,872 $5,661,756 $2,811,280 180,988 $5,477,290
===================================================================================
Percent West Virginia/United 0.043 0.045 0.042 0.039 0.039 0.042 0.039
States.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What can be done to ensure that a farmer who does
not live in a larger ``farm-state'' receives an equitable
portion of the assistance available to his fellow farmers?
Answer. West Virginia appears to be receiving a
proportionate share of Federal payments to producers based upon
current program availability. Communicating program
availability through media, mail, and outreach programs appears
to have been equally effective in West Virginia compared with
the national results. Efforts by FSA will continue in all State
and county offices to inform all producers of Federal
agricultural assistance programs.
Federal assistance to livestock producers has historically
been based on the occurrence of disasters. As a result,
relatively few Federal dollars are paid to West Virginia
farmers because the livestock sector is the predominant source
of agricultural output in West Virginia. Further, livestock
producer groups in the past have preferred not to have major
price and income support programs which helps explain why
livestock producers nationally receive relatively few Federal
payments.
------
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Question. Secretary Schumacher, you recently submitted a letter to
me, dated February 17, 2000, on Public Law 480 Title I and Title II
unobligated balances. That letter explains only the reasons for the
unobligated balances carried over from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year
2000. Please explain the reasons for the Title I unobligated balances
carried over from each of the fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998, and
projected to be carried over at the end of fiscal year 2000.
Answer. The Title I unobligated balance carried into 1996 was $9.5
million; into 1997, $6.8 million; into 1998, $68.4 million and into
1999, $58.3 million. The unobligated balances carried into 1996 and
1997 were the result of allocations being withdrawn at the end of the
fiscal year without adequate time to reprogram the funds. The
unobligated balances carried into 1998 were due to the following: a $10
million Title I allocation was withdrawn from Angola because reporting
responsibilities relating to previous Title I shipments were
unresolved; the $5 million allocation to the Congo was withdrawn due to
the civil war and subsequent government disarray; the $5 million
allocation to Guatemala was withdrawn when the Guatemalan government
ministries did not come to agreement among themselves on commodities to
be included in the program and on whether to exempt Title I importers
from a newly-levied import tax before the signature deadline for the
agreement; in Moldova the $10 million allocation was withdrawn due to
lack of interest among government ministry officials caused by a change
in focus, within the Government of Moldova, on the use of proceeds from
the sale of program commodities; in the Philippines the $10 million
allocation was withdrawn because the Government of the Philippines was
unable to complete the agreement before the signature deadline due to
internal disagreements on administrative matters; and the $5 million
allocation to Suriname was withdrawn because the Government of Suriname
decided not to purchase commodities through Public Law 480.
In addition to allocations that were withdrawn, some countries did
not purchase all the commodities allocated in their agreements. For
example, Jamaica was allocated $10 million to purchase rice but only
used $5.3 million. Lithuania was allocated $10 million to purchase
soybean meal but only purchased only $7.6 million. Some of these unused
allocations were offset by increased allocations to other countries
such as Pakistan. However, the end result was a rather large carryover
of funds into fiscal 1998.
Unobligated balances carried into fiscal 1999 were also primarily
due to countries deciding not to purchase commodities through Public
Law 480 Title I and other countries not purchasing all of the
commodities allocated in their agreements. For example, Cote d'Ivoire
and Pakistan decided not to purchase commodities and Albania, Angola,
Bangladesh, Bolivia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, El Salvador, Guyana,
Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Mozambique, and Tajikistan did not purchase all of
the commodities allocated in their agreements. In addition,
approximately $20 million was allocated to develop private trade
agreements. These agreements did not materialize and it was too late in
the fiscal year to reprogram the funds. Some of these unused
allocations were offset by increased allocations to other countries
such as Nicaragua. However, the end result was a rather large carryover
of funds into fiscal 1999.
At the current time, we are not projecting any significant
carryover of fiscal year 2000 unobligated balances into fiscal year
2001.
FAS HOUSES
Question. I understand that in the mid-1950's the Department of
Agriculture purchased residences for FAS Agriculture Attaches with the
proceeds of Public Law 480 purchases in approximately 12 countries.
While USDA purchased the property, by law it could not hold legal title
for the property so the Department of State took title to these homes.
I am told that now the Department of State is in the process of selling
these homes and retaining the proceeds, forcing FAS to incur the cost
of providing housing for attaches in these countries. Is this accurate?
What is USDA doing to resolve this situation and what additional costs
is FAS facing if it is not resolved? What legislative solution might be
appropriate to ensure that the USDA either receives the proceeds from
the sale of this property or is provided with comparable housing at the
same cost?
Answer. Through the foresight of the Congressional Agriculture
Committees, legislation was included in various DOS appropriations
authorizing the acquisition of residences for Agricultural Attaches.
Seventeen properties were purchased by the Department of State (DOS)
during the years from 1957 to 1979 to provide housing for Agricultural
Attaches in specific countries.
Congressional testimony by State's Office of Foreign Buildings
Operations (FBO) during those years reflects their intent to acquire
pieces of property for the use of these Attaches. Both DOS appropriated
funds and excess Public Law 480 currencies were used to acquire the
specific properties. The DOS's use of funds to acquire these properties
was based on priorities in agreement with USDA for acquisition of a
number of residences for occupancy by the senior Attache of the agency.
In the early 1990's, FBO claimed that it could sell some of those
residences although they had been occupied by Agricultural Attaches
since their purchase, in some cases for more than 40 years. Although
FAS contested this view, FBO has subsequently sold four of these
residences (in Lima, Peru; Quito, Equador; Santiago, Chile; and Rabat,
Morocco) and retained the proceeds for its own purposes. FAS no longer
has an Attache in Quito and was granted another government-owned house
in Rabat; however, FAS now pays over $85,000 annually for leased
housing for Lima and Santiago. In addition, two FAS residences have
been put into embassy housing pools, thus requiring FAS to pay for
leased housing. These are in Nairobi, Kenya (annual leasing cost in
excess of $26,000) and Warsaw, Poland ($43,000).
In total, the impact of the loss of these residences has been
additional costs of $680,000 to the FAS budget over the past 5 years.
Since the FAS administrative budget has been frozen during the past 3
years, these increased costs have had to come from other FAS programs
and activities.
During the past 2 years, FBO has announced that it intends to sell
two additional FAS occupied houses, in Vienna, Austria and Stockholm,
Sweden. If FBO succeeds in this, FAS will face annual leased housing
costs estimated at $70,000 for these two posts. Finally, FBO now claims
that FAS has no rights for continued assignment to two long-term FAS
houses, in Bangkok, Thailand and Cairo, Egypt. If FAS is forced out of
these residences, leased housing costs for the two posts are estimated
at over $120,000 annually.
Although FAS has contested this FBO policy for nearly 10 years, we
have been unable to deter the plan to sell off FAS houses. Most
recently, on December 7, 1999, Secretary Glickman wrote a letter to
Secretary Albright regarding the sale of the house in Vienna. The
Secretary asked that the proceeds of the sale be used to purchase
replacement housing for the FAS officer. In addition, Secretary
Glickman asked that he be advised of any actions which State might take
for other dedicated FAS housing. On February 18, 2000, Patrick Kennedy,
Assistant Secretary of State for Management, responded to Secretary
Glickman's letter, noting that State had no record that Department of
Agriculture funds were used to purchase or maintain the residence in
Vienna.
BUYING POWER MAINTENANCE ACCOUNT
Question. The FAS is requesting authority in fiscal year 2001 to
establish a Buying Power Maintenance Account to manage overseas
currency fluctuations. Please detail for each of the past 5 fiscal
years what impact overseas currency fluctuations have had on FAS'
direct appropriation as compared to the amount budgeted for these costs
in each of these years.
Answer. The information below compares the amount estimated at the
beginning of the fiscal year and the actual annual costs of maintaining
FAS overseas offices for the last 5 fiscal years. While not all the
differences can be attributed to just exchange rate movement, the data
is representative of general currency fluctuation trends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Budget Actual Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................................ $22,963 $23,842 ($879)
1996............................................................ 25,354 24,605 749
1997............................................................ 24,912 24,915 3
1998............................................................ 25,841 24,092 1,749
1999............................................................ 25,678 24,240 1,438
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAY COSTS
Question. The fiscal year 2001 request includes a total $1,533,000
increase to partially offset the fiscal year 2001 pay raise. What
increases in mandatory pay costs does the budget assume FAS will absorb
in fiscal year 2001 and how will FAS meet these costs?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget request for pay costs reflects
half the amount actually estimated to be needed. Absorbing the $1.5
million balance could require the elimination of up 20 staff years.
AGRICULTURAL TRADE OFFICE
Question. FAS has cited budgetary constraints as the reason for
having to close its Agricultural Trade Office (ATO) in Singapore at the
end of the year. I note that the fiscal year 2001 budget requests
additional appropriations for FAS to open three new ATOs in Mexico,
Canada and the Philippines. Why are these three new offices of highest
priority? Why establish ATOs in Mexico and Canada which are currently
our largest agricultural markets and are in close geographic proximity
to the United States, rather than in countries/regions with market
access/expansion potential?
Answer. The three proposed ATOs were chosen on the basis of their
market potential. The Philippines, with a population of 80 million, has
a rapidly growing economy which has largely escaped the financial
downturn suffered by many other Asian economies over the past 2 years.
While Philippine consumers often favor U.S. products, they also have
ready access to products from China and Australia, which are very
active in that market. ATO Manila should be able to provide a showcase
for a wide range of products in this growing market with major
potential.
Mexico is the third largest market for U.S. agricultural products,
and while nearby, it is not an easy one for U.S. exporters. The
proposed ATO in Monterey would provide support for exporters in
developing markets in the border region of Northern Mexico, which has
had the most dynamic economy in the country. With higher incomes, this
region has expanded demand beyond the traditional bulk commodities and
is taking increasing quantities of processed and consumer ready goods.
Besides working with U.S. suppliers of these products, ATO Monterey
would also focus on the problems of moving goods across the border.
Such problems often require some U.S. government intervention in
resolving issues of food inspection or safety.
Canada, the second largest destination for U.S. agricultural
products, has provided a particularly strong, consistent and growing
market for high value and processed foods. Although Canada is often
viewed as an easy nearby market, there are significant hurdles for
first-time exporters. The proposed ATO Toronto would focus on the
thousands of U.S. food producers who have never exported and who should
view Canada as a good ``starter'' market. In this context, the ATO
would provide specialized services for new exporters, providing them
with a higher level of support than would normally be offered. The ATO
would also play an active role in outreach in the Upper Midwest,
encouraging companies in the region to get involved in the Canadian
market.
Question. Did the Department consider retaining the Singapore ATO,
despite the higher cost of this office, given Singapore's strategic
prominence in the Southeast Asia region?
Answer. When the Agricultural Trade Office (ATO) was opened in
Singapore 21 years ago, the city was the major transshipment point for
agricultural trade with Southeast Asian countries, particularly nearby
Malaysia and Indonesia. Since that time, however, the city's share of
trade tonnage for the region has been eroding, a trend that is likely
to accelerate in the future. In Malaysia, for example, the opening of
Port Klang in 1996 (the first in the country which could handle the
larger, Panamax-sized vessels) and of the new Kuala Lumpur
International Airport in 1998 have stepped up the trend in displacing
transhipments that previously went through Singapore. Upgrades in port
and transportation facilities in Indonesia are also displacing trade
through Singapore. Indeed, the governments of both Malaysia and
Indonesia are pursuing policies which will further favor the use of
their own transportation facilities.
FAS has also made substantial gains in its staffing in Southeast
Asia during the past few years, opening an Attache Office in Hanoi,
Viet Nam in 1996, an ATO in Jakarta, Indonesia in 1997, and an office
in Ho Chi Min City, Viet Nam in 1997. Two additional Malaysians were
added to staff of the Agricultural Attache's Office in Kuala Lumpur in
1997. Consequently, many of the services previously offered by the ATO
in Singapore to these countries are now handled in-country by local
staff.
FAS recognizes the continuing importance of Singapore as a regional
financial and commodity trading center and will continue to maintain an
office with a staff of two Singaporeans to cover these issues as well
as trade servicing for this city of 4 million. This office will be
supervised by the Agricultural Attache in nearby Kuala Lumpur. In
addition, FSN staff from Kuala Lumpur will travel to Singapore to
support major events, such as regional trade shows.
With an annual budget of $900,000, ATO Singapore is the sixth most
expensive FAS office in the world. Its annual cost is higher than that
of several of our most critical posts, including the Minister
Counselor's offices in Beijing and in Mexico City. With a budget for
administrative costs frozen for the past 3 fiscal years, FAS has been
forced to absorb rising costs and to close posts whose cost exceed
their contribution to the agency's mission. For the reasons stated
above, we believe that Singapore is one of these posts and that the
resources expended there can be better used to support critical needs
in other areas.
Question. Mr. Galvin, in the prepared statement you submitted to
the Committee, you indicate that the ATO in Singapore will be closed at
the end of this fiscal year and you will save $0.9 million in fiscal
year 2001. For what specific purposes will the $0.9 million in saving
from the Singapore ATO be utilized in fiscal year 2001?
Answer. Savings from closing ATO Singapore will be utilized to
offset unavoidable wage and price increases. As a result of straight-
lined budgets for the past 3 fiscal years, FAS has been closing and
downsizing overseas offices and reducing marketing activities as the
means of offsetting these unavoidable cost increases. The fiscal year
2001 budget again requires FAS to absorb a significant portion of these
estimated costs.
COOPERATOR PROGRAM
Question. Beginning in fiscal year 2000, the Cooperator Program is
being funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation rather than
through FAS's direct appropriation. In shifting funding to the CCC,
$500,000 was retained in FAS's direct appropriation for fiscal year
2000 to cover the costs of administering the program. What was the cost
to FAS of administering the Cooperator Program in fiscal year 1999 and
is the full $500,000 being used for this purpose for fiscal year 2000.
Can CCC funds be used to administer the Cooperator Program. What level
of funding is included in the fiscal year 2001 appropriations request
to administer the Cooperator Program.
Answer. The cost of administering the Cooperator Program in fiscal
year 1999 was approximately $2.1 million. For fiscal year 2000, the
full $500,000 retained in the FAS appropriation will be used for this
purpose. For fiscal year 2001, the budget includes approximately $2.3
million for administration of the Cooperator Program.
While the program costs of the Cooperator program have shifted to
the CCC, CCC funds cannot be used to finance the costs of administering
the program.
SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION RESEARCH PROGRAM
Question. Please describe briefly each of the research and
scientific exchanges being carried out under the FAS administered
Scientific Cooperation Research Program in fiscal years 1999 and 2000
and the sources of funding for each. Does the fiscal year 2001 FAS
request include funding for this program? If so, what level of funding
is requested?
Answer. The FAS Scientific Cooperation Research Program is funded
from the annual appropriation made available to FAS. In fiscal year
1999, the program level totaled $1.8 million. The budgets for fiscal
years 2000 and 2001 include $1.9 million annually for these activities.
We will provide Research and Exchange Project Abstracts by Country for
both fiscal years 1999 and 2000 for the record.
[The information follows:]
FOREIGN MARKET DEVELOPMENT
Question. Please provide a breakout of how FMD Foreign Market
Development Cooperator Program funds were allocated in each fiscal
years 1999 and 2000.
Answer. The FMD approved marketing plan levels for fiscal years
1999 and 2000 are as follows:
FMD APPROVED MARKETING PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooperator 1999 budget 2000 Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cotton Council International............ $1,853,934 $1,953,000
American Peanut Council................. 572,123 561,945
American Seed Trade Association......... 260,197 272,163
American Soybean Association............ 6,977,863 7,081,782
National Cottonseed Products Association 139,846 140,374
National Sunflower Association.......... 269,604 265,871
Leather Industries Association.......... 196,915 198,069
U.S. Dairy Export Council............... 601,135 708,348
American Sheep Industry Association..... 163,316 167,537
U.S. Hide, Skin & Leather Association... 85,489 85,759
Mohair Council of America............... 30,020 26,129
U.S. Livestock Genetics Export Inc...... 774,145 801,336
National Renderers Association.......... 1,123,589 1,009,044
USA Poultry & Egg Export Council........ 1,564,498 1,512,990
U.S. Meat Export Federation............. 1,423,672 1,528,287
U.S. Beef Breeds Council................ 73,083 ..............
American Seafood Institute.............. 79,403 80,069
American Forest & Paper Association..... 2,836,132 2,851,287
North American Millers Association...... 81,215 81,528
National Hay Association................ 46,000 55,345
National Dry Bean Council............... 98,038 122,103
USA Dry Pea & Lentil Council............ 161,036 187,890
USA Rice Federation..................... 1,657,709 1,739,535
U.S. Grains Council..................... 5,676,788 5,709,387
U.S. Wheat Associates................... 6,789,084 6,394,954
California Agricultural Export Council 11,167 11,269
(Western Growers Association)..........
-------------------------------
Grand Total....................... 33,546,001 33,546,001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALLOCATIONS
Question. Please provide the Public Law 480 funding allocations, by
title, and by country and commodity for each of fiscal years 1999 and
2000 to date.
Answer. [The information follows:]
FUNDING FOR COCHRAN FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM
Question. The fiscal year 2001 budget proposes to maintain FAS
funding for the Cochran Fellowship Program at a level of $3.5 million.
Are available resources sufficient to extend fellowships to all
countries which seek to participate in the program? If not, what
additional funding would be required to meet these requests?
Answer. The success of the Cochran Fellowship Program to initiate
and pursue short- and long-term trade objectives and to influence
public- and private-sector decision makers has led to increased
requests to initiate the program in numerous countries around the
world. For fiscal year 2001, we have had requests from Agricultural
Affairs Offices and U.S. Embassies to start a Cochran Program in Egypt,
Jordan, Peru, Ecuador, Argentina, Uruguay, Mongolia, and Cambodia, and
expect requests for several additional African countries. The most
frequent requests for the Cochran Program is to provide training in
areas related to WTO/CODEX agricultural issues, food safety, sanitary
and phytosanitary (SPS) issues, genetically modified organisms (GMOs),
and biotechnology. In general, one of every four candidates that apply
for the program are selected.
Question. Please provide fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000
Cochran Fellowship Program participant levels by country and region,
along with the projected participant levels for fiscal year 2001.
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, a total of 797 participants from 65
countries received training under the Country Fellowship Program.
Participant numbers by region and by country follow:
--Asia: 131 participants from seven countries: Korea (1 participant),
Malaysia (11), China (37), Thailand (18), Indonesia (25),
Philippines (11), and Vietnam (28).
--Eastern Europe: 215 participants from 15 countries: Turkey (23),
Poland (47), Hungary (15), Czech Republic (16), Slovakia (14),
Albania (5), Bulgaria (15), Slovenia (8), Croatia (8), Latvia
(14), Estonia (13), Lithuania (12), Romania (20), Bosnia (2),
and Macedonia (3).
--Latin America and Caribbean: 149 participants from 14 Latin
American and Caribbean countries: Mexico (42), Venezuela (6),
Trinidad & Tobago (5), Caribbean Islands (44), Panama (8),
Colombia (17), Chile (1), Guatemala (3), Costa Rica (9),
Nicaragua (5), Brazil (5), El Salvador (2), Suriname (1), and
Guyana (1).
--Africa and Middle East: 113 participants from 18 African and Middle
Eastern countries: Cote d' Ivoire (9), Ghana (6), Senegal (10),
Nigeria (5), South Africa (22), Namibia (1), Kenya (12), Uganda
(9), Tanzania (5), Tunisia (12), Morocco (1), Oman (4), and 17
participants from 6 additional countries.
--New Independent States: 189 participants from 11 countries of the
New Independent States: Russia (53), Ukraine (21), Kazakstan
(17), Kyrgyzstan (13), Uzbekistan (20), Turkmenistan (13),
Tajikistan (3), Armenia (16), Moldova (15), Georgia (9), and
--Azerbaijan (9).
The selection of participants for fiscal year 2000 has not yet been
completed, thus we cannot provide exact Cochran participant levels by
country for fiscal year 2000. We expect, however, to provide training
to about 750 to 800 participants--roughly the same level as in fiscal
year 1999. We will extend the program to six new countries in fiscal
year 2000 (India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Mozambique).
In fiscal year 2001, we estimate that we will again provide
training to about 750-800 participants if funding levels remain at
present levels.
Question. Please provide examples of the benefits of the fiscal
year 1999 Cochran Fellowship Program to U.S. agriculture.
Answer. Cochran Fellowship Program participants attend trade shows,
seminars, and meet with public and private sector contacts to pursue
the objectives of their training. Several examples of fiscal year 1999
programs that had immediate benefits to U.S. agriculture include:
--The Cochran Program joined with FAS International Trade Policy and
FAS Emerging Markets program areas to develop a U.S.-sub-
Saharan Africa Workshop on Codex Alimentarius and the World
Trade Organization involving 37 participants from 17 African
countries. The training improved participants' understanding of
the processes at work in the WTO and the international standard
setting bodies. Most importantly, the discussions pointed out
areas of shared interests, including mutual concerns in the
next round of multilateral negotiations. The participants
agreed that there are significant areas in which the U.S. and
sub-Saharan African countries can cooperate in international
trade and the work of the international standard setting
bodies.
--The Cochran Program sponsored a Biotechnology and Genetically
Modified Organism (GMO) training activity for 15 experts from
five Central European countries Czech Republic, Hungary,
Slovenia, Croatia, and Slovakia. The program provided a
balanced U.S. viewpoint of this topic to Eastern European
policy makers. A film on U.S. biotechnology has been developed
by a Czech researcher from Prague Agricultural University and
is now available to Central and Eastern Europe audiences.
--The FAS Agricultural Offices in China reports that fiscal year 1999
Cochran teams have led to sales of: U.S. frozen seafood (2
containers of conch, 3 containers of squid, and 5 containers of
scallops), live seafood (geoduck clams, crabs, Maine lobster
and abalone), french fries (4 containers), and pistachios (over
10 containers) to date.
--The FAS Agricultural Officer covering Senegal reported that a
fiscal year 1999 participant purchased two containers one each
of frozen poultry and frozen meat. This was the first U.S.
export of frozen chicken and meat to Senegal. The participant
intends to purchase two containers per month, the value of
which is estimated at over $200,000 per year.
--Despite the slowdown in the Indonesian economy, fiscal year 1999
participants report they purchased U.S. supplies of raw
popcorn, almonds, prunes, dried fruits, walnuts, organic
vegetables, wheat flour, and skim milk powder, as a result of
their fiscal year 1999 Cochran training programs.
--The U.S. Meat Export Federation reports sales of U.S. lamb to
Barbados after a Cochran training activity.
--The FAS Agricultural Trade Office in Miami states that: ``The
Cochran Fellowship Program continues to be the most effective
FAS program used by our office in fiscal year 1999. The
constraints in the Caribbean of limited training opportunities
and some resentment of U.S. government policy continue to be
issues for our office. The ability to offer training
opportunities to persons in our sector is a powerful tool for
us to use in our efforts to expand our exports in the
Caribbean.''
--The Agricultural Officer in Costa Rica reports pilot sales of 190
cases of US wine following a Cochran Wine Merchandising
program.
--FAS Agricultural Attaches and former Cochran participants from
Central and Eastern Europe report that Cochran training
activities led to sales in fiscal year 1999 of: soybeans and
wheat to Albania; wild rice to Czech Republic; tofu grade
soybeans to Slovakia; almonds and walnut meal to Hungary; the
first ever direct sale of Florida citrus and U.S. walnuts to
Poland, and meat to Romania. We have heard that citrus and
walnut sales continue through the present.
--The FAS Agricultural Affairs Officer in Vietnam states that all the
fiscal year 1999 Cochran Programs were useful: ``. . . the two
programs in Animal Health helped stave-off a possible ban on
all beef imports (i.e., dioxin scare in EU) and greased the
skids on the quarantine period for 309 U.S. breeding hogs.
Moreover, the participant who attended the Grain Purchasing
program actually bought 10,000 MT of wheat last week. The
Agricultural Banking Team has been brought up to speed on GSM-
102, and will be very useful in the event of a Vietnam-specific
GSM program.''
--The Texas Grain Sorghum Board reports that over 126,000 metric tons
of South Texas grain sorghum was sold to Mexican buyers as a
direct result of a Cochran activity in June 1999.
--Natalia Markelova from the Samara region of Russia purchased 54
pregnant dairy goats at a value of $50,000 from an Illinois
company during her fiscal year 1999 Cochran program. She plans
to introduce goat milk into the domestic market and offer goat
milk as an option for baby formula.
--The FAS Agricultural Specialist in Uzbekistan states: ``The five
participants from the oilseed industry found the Cochran/
American Soybean Association training to be very professional
and effective. They established many useful contacts with U.S.
producers and processors of soybeans. Following the training,
Uzbekistan imported a total of 123,000 tons of US soybeans
under GSM-102 and Public Law 480 Title I programs. We strongly
believe that Cochran training was one of the effective tools
which positively affected Uzbekistan's decision to import US
soybeans for the first time. Post anticipates that Uzbekistan
is likely to continue to import U.S. soybeans.''
Question. Please provide the total amount of funding made available
for the Cochran Fellowship Program, including any funding made
available by other Federal agencies and the CCC, for each of the fiscal
years 1995-2000.
Answer. The Cochran Fellowship Program receives funding from three
sources: direct Congressional appropriations, funding from the FAS
Emerging Markets Program (EMP) for Cochran activities in specific
countries, and from the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) under the Freedom Support Act for Cochran activities in the New
Independent States (NIS). The following lists funding levels from these
sources, 1995 to 2000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Appropriations EMP FAS USAID Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................ $2,178,000 $2,100,000 $2,250,000 $6,528,000
1996............................................ 2,428,000 1,800,000 1,500,000 5,728,000
1997............................................ 2,428,000 945,000 1,800,000 5,173,000
1998............................................ 3,000,000 1,120,000 1,800,000 5,920,000
1999............................................ 3,500,000 1,834,000 1,846,000 7,180,000
2000............................................ 3,500,000 ( \1\ ) 1,562,000 5,062,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not yet determined.
ALLOCATIONS
Question. Please provide the Market Access Program allocations for
fiscal year 1999, including the amount of the grant, the recipient
company, commodity, and targeted markets.
Answer. The information is provided for the records.
[The information follows:]
OVERSEAS OFFICES
Question. Please provide a list of FAS overseas counselor/attache
and trade offices for fiscal year 1999 and 2000, and proposed for
fiscal year 2001, and the amount of funding and full-time equivalent
staffing levels provided for each.
Answer. A list of FAS overseas counselor/attache and trade offices
and the amount of funding and full-time equivalent staffing levels is
provided.
[The information follows:]
EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE ACTIVITIES
Question. Please provide a listing of the activities supported
under each of the four export credit guarantee activities in fiscal
year 1999 and in fiscal year 2000 to date: Supplier Credit Guarantees,
Facilities Guarantees, GSM-102, and GSM-103.
Answer.
[The information follows:]
SECTION 108
Question. It has come to my attention that ``Section 108''
resources are being utilized to supplement FAS's resources for market
development. Please provide for the record a description of what
``Section 108'' is; what level of ``Section 108'' resources are
available to the FAS for each of the fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001;
and for what specific purposes and in what amounts Section 108 funds
are being utilized in each of fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001?
Answer. ``Section 108'' refers to foreign currency accruing from
the repayment provision of Public Law 480 Title I agreements which
financed the sale and exportation of agricultural commodities to Costa
Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Jamaica, Morocco, Sri Lanka, and
Tunisia prior to November 22, 1990. At that time, certain Public Law
480, Title I agreements permitted foreign countries to repay the United
States in local currencies. The law required that up to 95 percent of
these foreign currencies be loaned to financial institutions within the
foreign country to support productive private enterprise development,
and up to 5 percent be made available to the Secretary of Agriculture
for agricultural technical assistance including market development
activities that would ultimately increase the consumption of and
markets for U.S. agricultural commodities and products. The Agency for
International Development (U.S.A.I.D.) carried out this loan program.
After the local financial institutions repaid the loans, the law
stipulated that the United States could only use the foreign currencies
for the following purposes:
(1) to make additional loans to local financial institutions;
(2) to develop new markets for U.S. agricultural products;
(3) to repay U.S. government obligations, e.g., embassy expenses;
or
(4) be converted to dollars. However, 10-years after the last
delivery of the commodity for which the Public Law 480 loan was made,
any unobligated foreign currencies must begin to be converted to
dollars and turned over to the U.S. treasury.
Examples of activities for which Section 108 funds were used
include local travel and per diem for trade teams, consultants and
technicians or local consultant fees, development, translation and
publication of printed material, point of sale promotional items, FAS
trade promotion activities, market potential surveys, and MAP/FMD
related cooperator activities.
Examples of activities for agricultural technical assistance
include construction of feed lots, in-country trade and technical
symposia, demonstrations, and training seminars or construction,
curricula development, and purchase or upgrading of equipment for
demonstration projects, baking schools and other training or
demonstration facilities.
The Office of the General Counsel for the Department of Agriculture
has determined that FAS may use the Section 108 foreign currencies for
market development and agricultural technical assistance in addition to
any other funds available to it for this purpose. These currencies
allow FAS to support market development activities which they would
otherwise not be able to support with existing resources.
It is difficult to place an accurate value on these resources
because they exist in seven different countries with volatile exchange
rates. However, the most accurate assessment of the total accrued value
of the foreign currencies in the seven countries amounted to
approximately $56 million in U.S. equivalents in October of 1999.
Obligations for these funds for 1999 and 2000 were $1.5 million and
$5.3 million respectively. There are no funds yet obligated for 2001.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SLADE GORTON
WHEAT SALES TO PAKISTAN
Question. Can you explain why wheat sales to Pakistan are at half
the levels they were a year ago? According to the statistics I've
reviewed, sales to Pakistan in 1998 hovered around 793,000 metric tons,
whereas this year it's projected that the U.S. has sold only 400,000
metric tons. Of the top 10 countries the U.S. promotes and sells wheat
to overseas, Pakistan was the one country that dipped so low in sales.
Can you explain why sales to Pakistan have slipped? Because Washington
soft white wheat is the premier choice of Pakistan purchasers, I am
obviously concerned.
Answer. In recent years, Pakistan has usually been a 1.5 to 2.0
million ton market for U.S. wheat producers in the Pacific Northwest.
However, so far in the current marketing year, we've only sold about
400,000 tons. It is essentially because Australia has been particularly
aggressive in light of a record wheat crop this year which has resulted
in enormous exportable supplies. In addition, the country has increased
its credit offering to Pakistan and is able to make use of a
significant freight advantage to the Pakistan market. Finally,
Pakistan's military government appears to be drawing down stocks in
anticipation of a good harvest this year, reducing total import needs
by 25 percent.
FAS will make maximum use of food aid donations and concessional
sales of wheat in order to keep U.S. wheat in Pakistan. In January, we
extended the term of our current GSM-102 offering from 2 years to 3
years as a means of increasing our competitiveness against Australia.
Question. Potato growers and other high value and specialty crops
in the Pacific Northwest are very concerned about the potential closure
of the FAS office in Singapore. Because growers in my state consider
Singapore as the gateway into other Asian markets, can you explain why
such an invaluable office is being eliminated? As a follow up, I
understand USDA might be considering opening other offices in the
region?
Answer. When the Agricultural Trade Office (ATO) was opened in
Singapore 21 years ago, the city was the major transshipment point for
agricultural trade with Southeast Asian countries, particularly nearby
Malaysia and Indonesia. Since that time, however, the city's share of
trade tonnage for the region has been eroding, a trend that is likely
to accelerate in the future. In Malaysia, for example, the opening of
Port Klang in 1996 (the first in the country which could handle the
larger, Panamax-sized vessels) and of the new Kuala Lumpur
International Airport in 1998 have stepped up the trend in displacing
transhipments that previously went through Singapore. Upgrades in port
and transportation facilities in Indonesia are also displacing trade
through Singapore. Indeed, the governments of both Malaysia and
Indonesia are pursuing policies which will further favor the use of
their own transportation facilities.
FAS has also made substantial gains in its staffing in Southeast
Asia during the past few years, opening an Attache Office in Hanoi,
Viet Nam in 1996, an ATO in Jakarta, Indonesia in 1997, and an office
in Ho Chi Min City, Viet Nam in 1997. Two additional Malaysians were
added to staff of the Agricultural Attache's Office in Kuala Lumpur in
1997. Consequently, many of the services previously offered by the ATO
in Singapore to these countries are now handled in-country by local
staff.
FAS recognizes the continuing importance of Singapore as a regional
financial and commodity trading center and will continue to maintain an
office with a staff of two Singaporeans to cover these issues as well
as trade servicing for this city of 4 million. This office will be
supervised by the Agricultural Attache in nearby Kuala Lumpur. In
addition, FSN staff from Kuala Lumpur will travel to Singapore to
support major events, such as regional trade shows.
With an annual budget of $900,000, ATO Singapore is the 6th most
expensive FAS office in the world. Its annual cost is higher than that
of several of our most critical posts, including the Minister
Counselor's offices in Beijing and in Mexico City. With a budget for
administrative costs frozen for the past 3 fiscal years, FAS has been
forced to absorb rising costs and to close posts whose costs exceed
their contribution to the agency's mission. For the reasons stated
above, we believe that Singapore is one of these posts and that the
resources expended there can be better used to support critical needs
in other areas.
FAS recognizes the fact that East Asia is likely to be the major
growth market for agricultural trade in the next few years and is
prepared to add more staff and to open additional offices in the region
if its budget is increased enough to support these openings. As you are
aware, the 2001 budget proposes increased funding for FAS to support
the opening of a new ATO in Manila, the Philippines, one of the most
promising growth markets in that region.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Question. The expanded trade initiative portion of this plan is
supposed to use all of the export programs and to utilize EEP funds and
food-aid programs. Yet, almost every single export program received a
budget cut this year. How can the USDA promote a trade initiative that
does not contain adequate funding?
Answer. While the President's fiscal year 2001 budget does project
lower levels of food assistance for fiscal year 2001, this largely
reflects the assumption of a return to more traditional program levels
after the unprecedented volume of activity in fiscal years 1999 and
2000. The fiscal year 2001 budget continues credit guarantee and market
development programs at fiscal year 2000 levels. Additionally, the
budget includes increases totaling $4.4 million for FAS, including $.8
million for market access compliance and negotiation activities. If we
are to meet the workload challenge facing FAS, it is crucial that FAS
receive funding at the level requested in the President's budget.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
FOREIGN TRADE AND ASSISTANCE
Question. U.S.-China WTO Accession Agreement. The Congress may be
asked to consider the U.S.-China WTO Accession Agreement later this
year. The impact of this agreement on agriculture will play a strong
role in my position on this issue.
I know there is a great deal of support for this agreement within
agriculture. But I have to say, I am concerned about whether or not at
least with respect to dairy the opening of markets in China will
necessarily benefit U.S. agriculture.
The U.S. dairy industry has long been concerned about the impact of
state trading enterprises namely the New Zealand Dairy Board on free
trade. While I know this Administration has made State Trading
Enterprises a top negotiating priority, to date, you've not made much
progress in reducing the trade distorting effects of these
organizations.
Despite the optimism about the China WTO Accession Agreement, what
can U.S. dairy farmers reasonably expect in terms of access to China
until we can fully reduce existing trade distortions?
Answer. The direct impact of WTO membership for China on U.S. dairy
exports is likely to be relatively modest at least for the first 5 or
so years. China has a rapidly expanding domestic dairy industry, but
compared to the potential size of the market for dairy products, the
domestic industry is very small. Demand is expanding and dairy product
imports are growing rapidly. The major items imported on both a volume
and value basis are milk powder and dried whey. China's WTO package
does not call for reduced tariffs for milk powder and dried whey since
duties on whey are already relatively low (6 percent) while
domestically produced powder tends to be in surplus at times.
Cheese, ice cream, and lactose are three products where imports
have been rapidly increasing and where reduced tariffs might be
expected to cause a further acceleration in demand. China's tariff on
cheese imports is to drop from 50 to 12 percent and with expanding
pizza and fast food restaurants, imports should grow rapidly.
Availability and consumption of ice cream is growing rapidly in the
large cities but penetration of more rural markets is difficult.
Expanding markets are expected to create demand both for direct imports
of ice cream and more imports of ice cream ingredients. The tariff for
ice cream is to drop from 45 to 19 percent. A similar situation exists
for yoghurt where the tariff will drop from 45 to 10 percent.
A large population with limited incomes means China's food industry
is always very interested in sources of low-priced high-quality food
ingredients. The already-low tariff on whey products, plus the
scheduled reductions for lactose (35 to 15 percent) and dairy based
food preparations (25 to 10 percent) should result in a big boost for
dairy product imports.
MARKET ACCESS AND FOREIGN MARKET DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Question. Beginning in fiscal year 2000, the Foreign Market
Development Program was to secure funding through mandatory spending at
levels no less than that available in fiscal year 1999. What levels of
funding did the Foreign Market Development Program receive in fiscal
year 1999 and what are your estimates for 2000 and 2001?
Answer. The Foreign Market Development Program was funded at $27.5
million for both fiscal year 1999 and 2000, and we anticipate $27.5
million for 2001.
Question. Please provide the levels and description of activities
through both the Market Access and Foreign Market Development Programs
related to dairy products.
Answer. The U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC), has received
$703,348 in fiscal year 2000 Foreign Market Development funds, and
$1,699,394 in fiscal year 1999 Market Access Program funds. USDEC is a
nonprofit industry trade membership organization representing
processors, exporters, producers and suppliers to the dairy industry.
The Council's activities include market research, technical seminars,
trade shows, product literature, and in-country trade servicing.
Promoted products include cheese, whey, yogurt, ice cream, milk powder,
and fluid milk. USDEC's efforts are concentrated in Japan, China,
Korea, Mexico, and Brazil.
WORLD HUNGER/U.S. ASSISTANCE
Question. World news too often reminds us of the tragic
consequences of human events and those of nature that take the form of
malnutrition and starvation, especially among children. U.S. food
assistance provides the double benefit of offering food to those in
need and establishing an outlet for U.S. production. It has been
suggested by some, such as former Senator and now U.S. Ambassador to
the United Nations for Food and Agriculture, George McGovern, that the
time has come for the U.S. to provide leadership in the creation of a
world-wide program modeled after the School Lunch and WIC programs
designed to curb child hunger. Ambassador McGovern has suggested the
initial U.S. cost in such an endeavor would be in the $1 billion range.
Does such a proposal fit within USDA's vision of providing humanitarian
food assistance.
Answer. USDA is a primary agency in the United States' efforts to
combat both domestic and international hunger and food security. This
effort goes beyond just humanitarian food assistance to development
assistance and policy interventions that will create sustainable food
security around the world. Last year, in March 1999, we released the
U.S. Action Plan on Food Security. This document provides a long-term
road map for the efforts of both the U.S. Government and civil society.
School feeding programs around the world are an important intervention
that can help build food security and end hunger, not just for those
who attend school, but for the households and the communities in which
children live over the long term. These types of programs help address
many of the root causes of food insecurity, as well as its most obvious
symptom: malnutrition.
School feeding programs encourage school attendance, particularly
among women and girls, and when properly structured, can help reduce
the costs associated with rural families sending their children to
school rather than putting them to work by providing supplemental food
for the household. We know that women's education is one of the most
important elements in reducing population growth. It also provides
greater economic opportunities.
It is difficult to accurately estimate the cost of a global program
because it will take a different shape in each country, depending on
local conditions and the strength of existing infrastructure.
Question. Assuming a large share of such assistance would serve as
an outlet for U.S. agricultural products, what effect, if any, would
such a proposal have on U.S. commodity prices?
Answer. To the extent that these programs lead to increased U.S.
agricultural exports, this should lead to increases in U.S. commodity
prices. This impact, of course, would vary by commodity and would be
dependent upon other dynamics taking place in the market. Additional
food assistance programs can also support the development of U.S.
export markets over the longer term, with an ongoing positive effect on
U.S. commodity prices.
EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Question. Secretary Schumacher's statement suggests that the Export
Enhancement Program (EEP) might be a more appropriate tool for U.S.
producers should market conditions change. Given the current commodity
surpluses and ongoing trade disputes with many of our trade partners,
what change in market conditions need to occur in order to make better
use of EEP?
Answer. In order for EEP to be beneficial to U.S. producers, it
must be used in a market environment where it would lead to significant
improvement in wheat prices without greatly depressing feed grain
prices. In the current market environment of large global supplies and
low prices for wheat and feed grains, the use of EEP would likely
result in only a modest boost in U.S. wheat prices and would
undoubtedly lead to increased imports of wheat from Canada and lower
U.S. feed grain exports. Furthermore, any increase in wheat producers'
incomes would be slight, since higher wheat prices would reduce loan
deficiency payments and marketing loan gains. EEP is most effective
when feed wheat does not compete with feed grain exports, and Canada,
and to a lesser extent Australia, do not have large crops. Under these
conditions, EEP would enable us to compete directly against EU
subsidized exports and lower world wheat prices would not displace feed
grain exports. In addition, reduced crop supplies in Canada and
Australia would lessen the displacement in U.S. export sales in non-EEP
markets and reduce the surge in imports from Canada following the
resumption of EEP. Of course, resumption of EEP has international trade
implications that also would have to be considered along with the
market environment for wheat and feed grains.
FAS HOUSING
Question. I understand some FAS Agriculture Attaches in foreign
missions reside in housing acquired through the use of Public Law 480
proceeds, yet the title for these properties is held by the U.S.
Department of State. I further understand that under State Department
policy, some of these properties are in the process of being sold with
the proceeds not accruing back to USDA from which they came. Please
explain how proceeds from these sales will be distributed. Please
explain the effect these sales will have on the housing needs of
foreign FAS personnel and on other agency's budget. If these sales will
have an adverse effect on agency activities, what is USDA doing to
negotiate an arrangement with the State Department or elsewhere within
the government to correct this problem?
Answer. Through the foresight of the Congressional Agriculture
Committees, legislation was included in various DOS appropriations
authorizing the acquisition of residences for Agricultural Attaches.
Seventeen properties were purchased by the Department of State (DOS)
during the years from 1957 to 1979 to provide housing for Agricultural
Attaches in specific countries.
Congressional testimony by State's Office of Foreign Buildings
Operations (FBO) during those years reflects their intent to acquire
pieces of property for the use of these Attaches. Both DOS appropriated
funds and excess Public Law 480 currencies were used to acquire the
specific properties. The DOS's use of funds to acquire these properties
was based on priorities in agreement with USDA for acquisition of a
number of residences for occupancy by the senior Attache of the agency.
In the early 1990's, FBO claimed that it could sell some of those
residences although they had been occupied by Agricultural Attaches
since their purchase, in some cases for more than 40 years. Although
FAS contested this view, FBO has subsequently sold four of these
residences (in Lima, Peru; Quito, Equador; Santiago, Chile; and Rabat,
Morocco) and retained the proceeds for its own purposes. As a
consequence, FAS now pays over $85,000 annually for leased housing for
these posts. In addition, two FAS residences have been put into embassy
housing pools, thus requiring FAS pay for leased housing. These are in
Nairobi, Kenya (annual leasing cost in excess of $26,000) and Warsaw,
Poland ($43,000).
In total, the impact of the loss of these residences has been
additional costs of $680,000 to the FAS budget over the past 5 years.
Since the FAS administrative budget has been frozen during the past 3
years, these increased costs have had to come from other FAS programs
and activities.
During the past 2 years, FBO has announced that it intends to sell
two additional FAS occupied houses, in Vienna, Austria and Stockholm,
Sweden. If FBO succeeds in this, FAS will face annual leased housing
costs estimated at $70,000 for these two posts. Finally, FBO now claims
that FAS has no rights for continued assignment to two long-term FAS
houses, in Bangkok, Thailand and Cairo, Egypt. If FAS is forced out of
these residences, leased housing costs for the two posts are estimated
at over $120,000 annually.
Although FAS has contested this FBO policy for nearly 10 years, we
have been unable to deter the plan to sell off FAS houses. Most
recently, on December 7, 1999, Secretary Glickman wrote a letter to
Secretary Albright regarding the sale of the house in Vienna. The
Secretary asked that the proceeds of the sale be used to purchase
replacement housing for the FAS officer. In addition, Secretary
Glickman asked that he be advised of any actions which State might take
for other dedicated FAS housing.
PUBLIC LAW 480
Question. The budget request for fiscal year 2001 reflects a drop
in the program level of all Public Law 480 programs. Title II, for
example, drops from $962 million for the current year to $837 million.
In addition, the level for fiscal year 2001 is more that $100 million
below the level in fiscal year 1999. While use of the 416(b) program
has been used in the past to supplement the assistance of Title II,
that program can not be relied on as a permanent tool to complement
Title II. In fact, use of 416(b) now seems to be quite less aggressive
than a year ago. What are the anticipated needs of international food
assistance programs for fiscal year 2001 and do the World Food Program
or other international organizations concur with those estimates?
Answer. The only annual assessment of future international food aid
needs we are aware of is the one prepared by the Economic Research
Service. And we believe this assessment is generally accepted by those
working in the field of international food aid. The World Food Program
provides to donors its estimates of the commodity needs of the projects
it is supporting, as well as estimates of emergency needs as they
arise.
Question. Why is 416(b) not being more aggressively used now?
Answer. We believe Section 416(b) authority is being both
aggressively and responsibly used. At the present time, we expect to
program about 4 million tons of food aid under this authority this
fiscal year; of this total, 500,000 tons will benefit needy people in
Russia. Last year, we programmed about 5.5 million tons, of which 1.7
million tons went to people in Russia.
Question. In the event 416(b) is not practically available, how
does the U.S. plan to meet its world assistance obligations in fiscal
year 2001 with a reduced program for Title II?
Answer. The United States' international commitment to provide food
aid is our commitment to the Food Aid Convention; this commitment is
2.5 million tons on a 12 month basis. Therefore, the combination of
Public Law 480 and Food for Progress programs assures that this
commitment is met. As is always the case, international food aid needs
will vary depending on weather, unforeseen natural disasters, and
unfortunately, often man-made disasters. The availability of Section
416(b) commodities does help the United States respond to such
situations. However, in addition to the Public Law 480 and Food for
Progress programs, there are commodities held by the Commodity Credit
Corporation in the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust--the Food Security
Commodity Reserve--which can also be used to help meet such needs.
DEIP
Question. In my oral questions I expressed concern about the impact
of DEIP volume and value reductions resulting from our WTO commitments.
I am concerned that the Department hasn't taken steps to ensure the
full use of DEIP tonnage by reallocating canceled DEIP tonnage from
previous years. This is particularly troubling given that milk prices
have fallen to 20 year lows. What are the Department's plans to utilize
the canceled tonnage in order to maximize DEIP exports and help relieve
price depressing surpluses of milk powder?
Answer. To utilize the DEIP program to the maximum extent possible,
and consistent with our WTO commitments, USDA has used the rollover
provision in the Agreement on Agriculture to bring tonnage forward from
past years. We have reprogrammed an additional 74,861 metric tons of
nonfat dry milk powder and 7,500 metric tons of whole milk above our
annual WTO commitments during 1997/1998, 1998/1999 and 1999/2000. In
using this rollover tonnage, we have fully exhausted our flexibility to
program canceled tonnage.
The additional canceled tonnage that the industry is now seeking
would require changing the U.S. methodology for reporting our WTO
export subsidy commitments. We established and committed to an
accounting methodology with respect to our subsidy reduction
commitments and should uphold this methodology, just as we would expect
other members to do. Changing in the final year of the implementation
period would be viewed as disingenuous, and probably subject to
challenge by other members. Finally, we believe such an action would
undermine our position of leadership as we enter a new round of global
negotiations that are of great importance to all of U.S. agriculture.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD
FOREIGN TRADE
Question. What steps has the U.S. Department of Agriculture taken
to expand markets for West Virginia agricultural products?
Answer. Through the Market Access Program (MAP), funding for
international market promotion activities to export-ready companies is
offered through the Southern U.S. Trade Association (SUSTA) in
marketing SUSTA regional products. West Virginia, 14 other southern
states, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are included in the SUSTA
region. West Virginia through its representation on SUSTA's Board of
Directors and its international marketing representatives, is involved
in the development and management of these activities.
FAS also provides MAP support funds through the National
Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) for the U.S.
Food Export Showcase (USFES). The USFES is part of the Food Marketing
Institute (FMI)'s major trade show for U.S. food products, held in
Chicago annually in May. NASDA organizes and supports individual
pavilions for State Departments of Agriculture at the USFES every year,
including West Virginia, at reduced rates.
Question. What has been the result of these efforts?
Answer. SUSTA has actively recruited in West Virginia to assist the
West Virginia Department of Agriculture's Market & Development Division
in a renewed effort to take advantage of MAP funding for export-ready
companies.
NASDA has assisted West Virginia with its individual pavilion
within the Food Export Showcase during the last 3 years. At the
Showcase 8-10 West Virginia companies have been participating, and
sales have resulted.
Through the Southern U.S. Trade Association (SUSTA) last November,
West Virginia contacted FAS about other potential USDA programs
concerning its agricultural products. Robert Williams, Director of West
Virginia's Market & Development Division, has worked with a program (WV
Jobs Investment Trust) in moving foreclosed aquaculture farms in its
state and possibly other related entities into an independent
cooperative. He submitted a summary of the ``High Appalachian Project''
to FAS and USDA/Rural Business--Cooperative Service in February.
Cooperative Service reviewed this summary in early March, and this
group may independently request technical assistance (i.e, business
planning, market strategy development) in the near future.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
RISK MANAGEMENT EDUCATION
Question. What amount of current funding is devoted annually to
risk management education activities? Are all of these funds
discretionary, or are there available funds for these activities in the
FCIC Fund? If so, please delineate these.
Answer. During fiscal year 2000, RMA plans to devote $1 million to
Risk Management Education (RME) initiatives. All of these funds will be
obligated from the mandatory Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC)
Fund.
Question. Please provide a list of outside organizations with which
RMA has contracts or cooperative agreements for risk management
education activities and the value of each.
Answer. As of February 29, 2000, RMA has obligated $118,874.40 to
outside organizations in the form of contracts or cooperative
agreements to support RME activities. RMA plans to obligate remaining
RME funds over the next 6 months. Please see the attached table.
[The information follows:]
RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY--RISK MANAGEMENT EDUCATION CONTRACTS AND
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS FISCAL YEAR 2000
[As of 2-29-00]
Cooperative Agreements: Foreign Agriculture Service
with the National Future Farmers of America
Foundation................................................$40,000.00
Purchase Orders/Contracts:
Pennsylvania Farm Bureau....................................7,000.00
National Introducing Brokers Associ...........................800.00
Montana Grains Foundation...................................7,500.00
University of Nevada........................................2,000.00
University of Arizona.......................................1,500.00
University of Arizona.......................................4,500.00
University of California....................................1,000.00
Futures Industry Institute.................................15,000.00
Oregon State University/Ag Resear...........................3,000.00
Country Hedging, Incorporated...............................5,000.00
Washington Association of Wheat G...........................2,000.00
Oregon Wheat Growers League.................................7,000.00
University of Idaho Cooperative E...........................3,000.00
Ohio State University.......................................2,850.00
Illinois Farm Bureau........................................1,734.40
Purdue University...........................................5,000.00
Financial Ag Risk Management Serv...........................2,500.00
Alabama Farm Bureau Federation..............................4,490.00
1Ft. Valley State University................................2,000.00
Georgia 4-H Foundation......................................1,000.00
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total..................................................$118,874.40
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) COSTS
Question. The budget includes an increase of $3,717,000 for RMA
administrative and operating costs, of which $403,000 is for
information technology costs. How much funding is included in the
discretionary base for IT costs? In the mandatory base?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 discretionary base includes $22.1
million for IT costs. A portion of the IT base includes projects that
have been unfunded in prior years due to cuts in the budget process.
The fiscal year 2001 funding base for IT costs in the mandatory FCIC
Fund is $1.5 million.
COMPANY UNDERWRITING GAINS
Question. The budget estimates delivery expenses for fiscal year
2001 of $507,679,000. What are the estimated underwriting gains for
fiscal year 2001 between buy-up coverage and catastrophic coverage?
What were the underwriting gains for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Based on the fiscal year 2001 President's Budget, RMA
estimated company underwriting gains of $156.5 million for fiscal year
2000 and $163.8 million for fiscal year 2001.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Question. The emphasis the Administration has put on conservation
in their latest budget proposal appears to leave any real commitment to
Risk Management reform out of picture, which is sorely needed across
the nation. What changes are you proposing that are significant, and
capable of breaking the stagnation we current see occurring? What was
the budget score on this proposal?
Answer. The Administration continues its strong desire to improve
crop insurance participation and farmer applied risk management tools.
The Administration has continued to work closely with Congress to
ensure that significant improvements are achieved. Recently, the Senate
Agriculture Committee, working closely with the Administration, took a
significant step forward by approving its version of a Risk Management
improvement bill. The bill was approved by the Senate.
In fact, this Administration's budget request included a
continuation of discounts on crop insurance premiums paid by farmers
begun in fiscal year 1999 (this year, the administration assumes the
cost of these premium discounts to be about $400 million), a proposal
that reaffirms our commitment to increasing crop insurance coverage and
participation levels. Additionally, the Administration continues to
support insurance coverage to support farmers who have suffered
multiple years of losses at a level of $100 million, expanding crop
insurance to cover livestock at a cost of $100 million, budget to make
more flexible NAP, costing $110 million, by eliminating the area
trigger and by requesting $40 million of Congress to improve Risk
Management Education and $30 million in additional funds for product
research and development.
Most of these proposals are contained in all the crop insurance
improvement bills under consideration by Congress. All, these proposals
could be considered significant by themselves, however, this
Administration believes this basic package critical for Congress to
enact this year.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS
Question. As you are aware, last year, at my request, Congress
directed the Risk Management Agency to perform an actuarial study to
determine the feasibility of including salmon in the Federal crop
insurance program. I understand that the Agency is proceeding with this
study. What is the status of the study?
Answer. Risk Management Agency (RMA) personnel contacted Dr. Ray
Ralonde of the University of Alaska, Marine Advisory Program, to review
the Alaskan salmon industry and gain an overview of the economic risks.
Dr. Ralonde provided information and suggested RMA contact Dr. Terry
Johnson, State Extension Agent for the National Marine Fisheries
Service, and Dr. Gunner Knapp, Professor of Economics, University of
Alaska. RMA also contacted Dr. Johnson and Dr. Knapp to discuss
industry concerns as well as the feasibility of developing a crop
insurance program based on sound actuarial risk management principles.
Dr. Knapp & Dr. Johnson both verified they would be available and
interested in conducting such a study. Dr. Ralonde also expressed
willingness to help in whatever way he could but expressed that the
study was probably less within his areas of focus. Funds have been
budgeted to conduct the study this year.
Question. I want the Risk Management Agency to conduct a pilot
program to determine the feasibility of including salmon within the
crop insurance program. If it met the actuarial soundness requirement
are you prepared to initiate this pilot program also?
Answer. RMA has initiated discussions with several industry experts
in terms of identifying sources of both production & economic risks
associated with producing salmon.
We are gathering information concerning the main areas of interest
so RMA can accurately direct our focus and resources. The results of
the feasibility study will determine what crop insurance plan to offer
and if any legislative authority is required.
After discussions with your staff (Mr. Butzlaff), RMA is proceeding
toward developing a feasibility study and pilot program which focuses
our efforts on the commercial fisheries area of Bristol Bay. RMA has
advised your office that a change in the Federal Crop Insurance Act is
likely necessary for RMA to implement a pilot program that includes
premium subsidies. Your office has been furnished information from
USDA's Office of General Counsel on this matter.
Question. What funds will the Risk Management Agency need to
complete this study and a subsequent pilot program in Alaska?
Answer. RMA is using $75,000 from the fiscal year 2000 Research and
Development fund Section 516(b)(2) of the FCIC Act to complete the
initial feasibility study. Budget requirements for subsequent fiscal
years for pilot program research, development and implementation are
estimated at $800,000, however, no commitment of funds have been
allocated at this time pending numerous other program requests of RMA
and the annual spending limitation placed on these funds within the
Act.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HERB KOHL
DAIRY OPTIONS PILOT PROGRAM
Question. During the hearing I asked what the Department is
planning to do to ramp up the Dairy Options Pilot Program consistent
with Secretary Glickman's commitment on February 10. I am concerned by
the Department's response that dairy farmers should be able to
participate in the program for no more than one round.
RMA has operated multi-year pilot programs for many other
commodities. Moreover, given the complexity of using the options market
as a risk management tool, it is reasonable to expect that dairy
farmers and USDA would need more than one round to determine the
benefits and short comings of options markets as risk management tools
in dairy. Finally, it is clear that Congress envisioned the options
pilot program operating in a county for multiple rounds since the
statute limits participation to no more than 3 years. Congress limited
participation to 100 counties concurrently, not in total.
How can RMA resolve the inconsistency between its operation of the
DOPP and its unnecessarily narrow interpretation of the authorizing Act
with the statements made by Secretary Glickman regarding the
Department's efforts to increase use of DOPP?
Answer. The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
says that ``the Secretary may operate the pilot program in not more
than 100 counties . . . . '' It does not say ``not more than 100
counties at any one time''. The intent of Congress is unclear. As a
result, RMA has been advised by USDA's Office of General Counsel that
legislative action will be required to expand into more than 100
counties. RMA is currently reviewing ways to expand the Dairy Options
Pilot Program.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD
IMBALANCE OF USDA ASSISTANCE
Question. Farming in the Northeast (USDA's definition of Northeast
includes West Virginia) accounts for 6 percent of U.S. farm numbers and
8 percent of rural agricultural production values but receives just 1
percent of direct payments and federal crop insurane payments to
producers. I am concerned that the hardworking West Virginia farmer is
not receiving a fair portion of assistance provided by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
What factors contribute to the discrepancy between amount produced,
and assistance received?
Answer. There could be several reasons for differences between the
Northeast and the rest of the country. These other reasons would argue
against the premise ``that the hardworking West Virginia farmer is not
receiving a fair portion of the assistance provided by USDA.'' For
example:
1. Crop income versus livestock income.--The share of agricultural
income derived from crops versus livestock and livestock products
(e.g.--meat and milk). Both direct payments and crop insurance focus on
crop production rather than livestock production. If the Northeast has
relatively more income from livestock than rest of the country, then
its share of direct payments and crop insurance, by definition, will be
lower than the national average, when measured as a percent of the
value of agricultural production.
2. Crops produced.--Direct payments are focused on the loan
commodities that are of lesser importance to the agriculture of the
Northeast than to rest of the country. Crop insurance is not yet
available on all crops produced in the Northeast, but RMA's Adjusted
Gross Revenue (AGR) insurance program, which is currently in the very
early pilot stages, does cover all vegetative crops and provides
limited coverage for livestock.
3. Farmers' choices of coverage levels.--The portion of farmers who
chose to sign up for FCIC's free, basic crop insurance product--called
CAT, for catastrophic coverage--compared to the higher coverage levels
for which a premium is charged, is higher in the Northeast than the
rest of the country.
4. Participation in crop insurance program.--If farmers elect not
to sign up for crop insurance--for whatever reason--then they and the
region in which they farm will have a lower share in the benefits of
the crop insurance program.
Question. What can be done to ensure that a farmer who does not
live in a larger ``farm-state'' receives an equitable portion of the
assistance available to his fellow farmers?
Answer. It is helpful to think of this problem both from two
perspectives--the farmers' and Governments'. One must try to ``push''
crop insurance benefits to areas of need, the other must try to pull
them from the center.
The most important actions from the ``pull'' side would be for
farmers to sign up for the various crop insurance programs that are
available and to sign up at higher coverage levels. This, of course,
immediately causes the desired benefits to flow. But it also converts
potential demand into effective demand and makes money for agents'
commissions and insurance company underwriting profits to become
available.
On the ``push'' side, it is important to note that FCIC uses a
``for-profit'' delivery system--private insurance companies and their
agents--to deliver its products to farmers. An increase in effective
demand from the ``pull'' side, as suggested above, convince companies
and their agents to be more aggressive in pushing products in
agriculturally sparse areas such as the Northeast.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Cochran. We will have our next hearing on Tuesday,
March, in this same room, 138, Dirksen Senate Office Building.
At that time, we will review the President's budget request for
the programs and activities of the Food and Drug
Administration. Until then, the committee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., Tuesday, February 29, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:08 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Thad Cochran (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Cochran, Gorton, Stevens, Harkin, and
Durbin.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
STATEMENTS OF:
HON. DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
JANE E. HENNEY, M.D., COMMISSIONER
ACCOMPANIED BY:
BERNARD SCHWETZ, D.V.M., PH.D., ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
ROBERT J. BYRD, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR MANAGEMENT AND SYSTEMS,
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
DENNIS P. WILLIAMS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
JOSEPH A. LEVITT, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY AND APPLIED
NUTRITION
MITCHELL R. ZELLER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF TOBACCO PROGRAMS
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. The subcommittee will please come to
order.
Today we continue our hearings reviewing the President's
budget request for fiscal year 2001 for the subjects that come
under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. This morning we
are pleased to have witnesses from the Department of Health and
Human Services, the Secretary, as well as the Commissioner of
the Food and Drug Administration. We appreciate very much your
being here. We understand that accompanying the Secretary and
Commissioner are Dr. Bernard Schwetz, who is Acting Deputy
Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, and Mr.
Robert J. Byrd, Deputy Commissioner for Management and Systems
and Chief Financial Officer of the Food and Drug
Administration, and Mr. Dennis Williams, who is Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Budget at the Department of Health and
Human Services.
We notice from reviewing the statements that have been
submitted, which will be made a part of the record, that the
FDA has some high priorities, and we are looking forward to
hearing more about those in the testimony this morning.
One area that we are aware of that causes particularly
difficult challenges for the agency is the technological
advances that continue to be made that have resulted in a
proliferation of new products and devices that are designed to
benefit the American public in our quest for health and safety.
We appreciate the challenge this creates for the Food and Drug
Administration. We want to allow safe and effective products to
reach the marketplace as quickly as possible, but we realize at
the same time that the potential risks have to be monitored, as
well as for products that are already on the market.
We will be carefully considering the budget request in this
area, along with the other priority areas, and consider the
need for adequate resources to inspect more products on the
market, to further reduce product approval times, to strengthen
adverse events reporting systems, to ensure the safety of foods
and imports, and to meet the new challenges, such as the
illegal sale of drugs over the Internet.
We are particularly pleased that the Secretary is here this
morning. We want to assure her that we will work with her and
her Department to address this agency's most critical needs.
We also want to take this opportunity to commend the
Commissioner, Dr. Henney, for her excellent service as
administrator of the Food and Drug Administration.
Madam Secretary, we invite you to proceed. We look forward
to your statement. We will then hear from Dr. Henney. You may
proceed.
Secretary Shalala. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the invitation to be here. Chairman Stevens, Senator
Gorton, Senator Durbin. I am delighted to join our very
distinguished Commissioner who will describe in more detail
FDA's first budget of the 21st century.
FDA has earned worldwide respect as a premier public health
agency, and the members of this subcommittee know the extensive
responsibilities FDA has to ensure the safety of our food, our
lifesaving drugs, and medical devices. And you know the work of
this agency has created a quality and safety standard that many
similar agencies around the world use as a benchmark.
I would like to discuss with you today some of the specific
areas where FDA is an essential partner in the progress we hope
to achieve.
First, we have made great progress on a bipartisan basis to
improve the safety of our food supply, but we have farther to
go. I look forward to your continued support on this critical
issue.
Second, the Nation faces a potentially dangerous threat
from terrorists who would use disease agents rather than
bullets or explosives to harm us. The administration and the
Congress have been working to guard against this threat. We
need the Food and Drug Administration to ensure that we have
new vaccines to protect against these threats and powerful
pharmaceuticals to protect us in the event of an attack.
Third, we need a bipartisan effort to reduce the
preventable deaths and injuries resulting from medical errors.
We need better information on which drugs and medical devices
are the most prone to error so that we can help physicians and
medical personnel to use them more effectively and safely. A
stronger adverse event reporting system at FDA is essential to
our success in the area of medical errors.
Fourth, we know that the Internet can help us to improve
health and medicine. But we want to make sure that when
Americans use the Internet to order pharmaceuticals, they can
be sure that the drugs they receive are safe and effective and
that they are the drugs they need. I hope you will support our
initiative to make Internet drugs safe.
Fifth, assuring products are safe and effective before they
get to market is essential to our public health. Doing so
quickly is necessary to a strong and innovative medical
industry. We need to increase the resources that we make
available for premarket review.
We also request funding to support compliance checks of
those who would sell tobacco products to our children.
Sixth, one of my top priorities this year is to ensure that
our scientists have the facilities they need. I have made
similar requests for the Centers for Disease Control, for
example, and the NIH. For FDA, this means replacing the
dilapidated laboratory in Los Angeles with a state-of-the-art
facility on the campus of the University of California at
Irvine.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, during his State of the Union
address last month, the President noted that innovations in
science and technology will be the key to miraculous
improvements in the quality of our lives and advances in the
economy. He discussed the remarkable fruits of the major
expansion we have provided in taxpayer funded research that
promises to improve our health and the way health care is
delivered.
However, as you know, these new breakthroughs, whether
drugs or vaccines or medical devices or food additives, must
come through the FDA review process to ensure their safe and
effective exposure to millions of Americans who will use them.
So, I would ask you to consider how we can strengthen FDA's
capacity to oversee the entry of these products to market.
These new products will change health care in America
forever and will help us all to lead longer and healthier
lives. In other words, Mr. Chairman, this is really a warning,
perhaps the last one that I will give to this Congress. This is
possibly my last testimony. We are about to see breakthroughs
in American science that were unbelievable decades ago, but
they will get clogged up in the FDA process if FDA does not
continue its modernization process. So, investing in the
science at FDA and smoothing out the review processes and
making sure FDA has the kind of facilities it needs will be
important so that there is a seamless system of the
breakthroughs in basic science to the development of product to
approval by FDA.
Both Republicans and Democrats in this Congress have worked
very hard on FDA reform. We have, in fact, made FDA the model
agency of the world from the point of view of scientists around
the world, but also from the point of view of those that
produce the products that get to market that improve our
health. But we are in danger in this age of breakthroughs in
biomedical science of again getting clogged up in the process
unless FDA also has the proper investments. That is what we
need to do and that is what I believe this committee will see
as one of its major priorities.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank you and members of this
committee for your past support for FDA funding, and again
thank you for considering the important investments we have
proposed for the agency for the next fiscal year.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA E. SHALALA
Mr. Chairman, Senator Kohl and members of the subcommittee, I am
delighted to join Commissioner Henney, who will describe in more detail
FDA's first budget of the 21st century.
FDA has earned worldwide respect as a premier public health agency.
The members of this subcommittee know the extensive responsibilities
FDA has to ensure the safety of our food, lifesaving drugs and medical
devices. And you know that the work of this agency has created a
quality and safety standard that many similar agencies around the world
use as their benchmark.
I would like to discuss with you today some of the specific areas
where FDA is an essential partner in the progress we hope to achieve.
We have made great progress on a bipartisan basis to improve the
safety of our food supply. But we have farther to go. I look forward to
your continued support on this critical issue.
The nation faces a potentially dangerous threat from terrorists who
would use disease agents rather than bullets or explosives to harm us.
The Administration and the Congress have been working to guard against
this threat. We need the FDA to ensure that we have new vaccines to
protect against these threats, and powerful pharmaceuticals to protect
us in the event of an attack.
We need a bipartisan effort to reduce the preventable deaths and
injuries resulting from medical errors. We need better information on
which drugs and medical devices are the most prone to error, so that we
can help physicians and medical personnel to use them more effectively
and safely. A stronger adverse event reporting system at FDA is
essential to success.
We also know that the Internet can help us to improve health and
medicine. But we want to make sure that when Americans use the Internet
to order pharmaceuticals, they can be sure the drugs they receive are
safe and effective, and that they are the drugs they need. I hope you
will support our initiative to make Internet drugs safe.
Assuring products are safe and effective before they get to market
is essential to our public health; doing so quickly is necessary to a
strong, innovative medical industry. We need to increase the resources
that we make available for premarket review.
We also request funding to support compliance checks of those who
would sell tobacco products to children.
One of my top priorities this year is to ensure that our scientists
have the facilities they need. For FDA, this means replacing the
dilapidated laboratory in Los Angeles with a state-of-the-art facility
on the campus of the University of California at Irvine.
Mr. Chairman, during his State of the Union address last month, the
President noted that innovations in science and technology will be the
key to miraculous improvements in the quality of our lives and advances
in the economy. He discussed the remarkable fruits of the major
expansion we have provided in taxpayer-funded research that promises to
improve our health and the way health care is delivered.
However, as you know, these new breakthroughs--whether drugs or
vaccines or medical devices or food additives--must come through FDA's
review process to ensure their safe and effective exposure to the
million of Americans who will use them. So I would ask you today to
consider how we can strengthen FDA's capacity to oversee the entry of
these products to the market.
These new products will change health care in America and will help
us all to lead longer, healthier lives. They also will bring enormous
economic benefits, both in lowering health care costs and in returning
profits on the investments that are being made in research. And these
advancements are not just theoretical. They are moving--now--from the
laboratory into clinical trials and on to general availability. But if
FDA does not have the increasingly complex scientific capacity needed
to get safe and effective technologies to the market expeditiously, and
monitor their safe use after approval, both patients and the industry
will suffer.
Again, I want to thank you for your past support for FDA funding.
And thank you for considering the important investments we have
proposed for the Agency for the next fiscal year.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
We know you have another commitment, but before you leave,
I am going to give Senators an opportunity to make any comment
or reaction to your statement. Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, I have several questions I
would like to save the time for those questions and waive an
opening statement. I would like to thank the Secretary and Dr.
Henney for being with us today.
Senator Cochran. Senator Gorton.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SLADE GORTON
Senator Gorton. Mr. Chairman, my statement is directed more
at Commissioner Henney than it is at the Secretary. But, of
course, it has to do with what seems to me to be the emergent
and most troubling issue of all, and that is the price of
prescription drugs to the citizens of the United States,
something that I know that these two heard and discussed when
they were before the House committee.
We are the only free market in the world in prescription
drugs, and other countries have imposed the kind of price
controls that cause Americans to bear overwhelmingly the burden
of cost for the research and development of new drugs. I think
it is absolutely unconscionable, Mr. Chairman, that the
American taxpayer essentially subsidizes the research and
development of new drugs for other countries in three ways.
First, we put almost $18 billion a year through the NIH.
Second, we of course grant a very important research and
development tax credit.
And finally, we subsidize a third time around at the
pharmacy in the form of higher prices.
Prescription drug costs, as the Commissioner and the
Secretary well know, are becoming an increasingly important
part of the cost of health care, and we need all of our best
possible thoughts put to the proposition as to how we at least
equalize this burden and cause our neighbors, both to the north
and south, to pay their fair share of those costs.
I represent a border State, bordering on Canada. A family,
noted in the newspapers recently, from Tacoma saved $600 by
going to Canada to buy a 3-month supply of blood pressure,
stomach, and sinus medications. One of the cancer treatments
cost $15 for a 1-month supply in Canada, $95 if you are simply
on our side of the border. I may say I myself take Zocor, very
much advertised; $3.16 a pill here, $1.65 in Canada. Other
different prices are as much as 5 or 6 to 1 between the United
States and Canada or the United States and Mexico.
I think this is just simply unconscionable. At this point I
am not aiming my comments so much at the drug companies that
obviously have to pay at least their share of these development
costs, but it seems to me entirely and totally unfair and
inappropriate that our drug developers and manufacturers--and I
am sure Commissioner Henney can speak to this, if she will--who
do the overwhelming lion's share of the research and
development throughout the world, that we are, in effect,
letting almost every other foreign country ride on that
research, sell these prescription drugs at much lower prices
than are charged to people here in the United States.
We hear much about this being a problem for seniors, and of
course, it is. But it is a problem for everyone, not only
everyone who pays cash for prescription drugs, but it is
reflected undoubtedly in the cost of health insurance where
health insurance plans in the United States provide for a drug
benefit. I very much hope that Commissioner Henney will speak
to this issue during the course of her testimony.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Senator Gorton.
Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. Well, I do want the Secretary to be able
to leave and make her other appointment.
I am constrained to say, do you know something I do not
know? You said this may be your last appearance before our
committee.
Secretary Shalala. I have finished my appropriations
testimony for this year, and I do not expect to be here next
year, Senator.
Senator Stevens. I expect you to be back before us this
year.
Secretary Shalala. Senator, at your request, I will always
be there.
Senator Stevens. We look forward to that pleasure.
I do thank you both for the work you are doing. I will have
some comments later, but I am extremely pleased, as I told you
personally, with the progress now being made on the PET scan
and other imaging systems and having them being properly
considered by the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
I do have a comment later addressed to Dr. Henney about the
seafood monitoring provision in this bill, but for now, thank
you very much for being here, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Shalala. Thank you.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Madam Secretary. We appreciate
your presence and we look forward to working with you on these
proposals.
Senator Stevens. Senator Cochran and I can arrange for you
to have a trip here for other activities whenever you are
ready. She is one terrific tennis player, I will tell you.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Good morning Secretary Shalala and Commissioner Henney (Hay-nee).
It's a pleasure to have you here today before the subcommittee. The
FDA'S budget request for fiscal year 2001 of $1.4 billion is a 13
percent increase over fiscal year 2000. I certainly appreciate the
importance of the work that the FDA does, but, as I have said in other
budget hearings, I believe the President's budget request represents an
unrealistic spending level when we consider Congress' commitment to
keep a balanced budget and to not dip into the Social Security surplus
to finance current government operations.
I note that the administration will be proposing legislation to
consolidate the seafood monitoring activities of the Federal Government
in the FDA, including the Commerce Department's Seafood Inspection
Program. That program provides voluntary inspections and certification
services for fish and fishery products on a fee-for-service basis. The
seafood industry is of critical importance to Alaska, and I will be
watching carefully how this proposal develops.
On another subject, I'd like to commend Commissioner Henney and the
Secretary for the way that FDA has worked cooperatively with the pet
community to come up with a reasonable framework for regulating the
radiopharmaceuticals used in pet scans. I understand that FDA will be
issuing a notice within the next couple of weeks approving the
radiopharmaceutical ``FDG'' for use in pet scans to diagnose a wide
range of cancers and heart disease. I'm pleased at FDA'S cooperation
with the pet community.
I know that both the Secretary and Commissioner Henney are aware of
my strong support for pet and for obtaining broad coverage for pet
scans under the Medicare program. I would urge both of you to help FDA
and HCFA work more closely together so that we can bring new
technologies into the Medicare program to benefit seniors much more
quickly than is the case today. I ask you both to join me in working
towards this goal.
Senator Cochran. Dr. Henney, we are prepared to hear your
statement now. We welcome you to the committee, and thank you
for your cooperation with us.
STATEMENT OF JANE E. HENNEY
Dr. Henney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. It is a privilege today, as Commissioner of Food and
Drugs, to present FDA's plans and expectations as reflected in
the administration's proposed budget for fiscal year 2001.
Patients, researchers, health professionals, manufacturers,
educators, grocers, public sector administrators, or just
ordinary citizens want a public health regulatory agency such
as the FDA to be fair, competent and, above all, credible. I
have heard this message in different words on many occasions in
many settings this past year. I believe that the
accomplishments of this year will demonstrate that FDA has done
a remarkable job in maintaining the public's confidence and
credibility even though we face numerous unpredictable issues
on a day-to-day basis.
It may be far too easy for Americans to assume FDA's
competence and credibility because we have long enjoyed public
confidence in the past. However, from listening to my European
counterparts, public confidence, once lost, is not easily or
quickly restored. A series of highly publicized crises in
Europe over the past several years have caused my counterparts
to ask: What is FDA's secret and how does FDA utilize science
and build consensus answers to so many inherently contentious
issues? The answers are not found in FDA's organizational
diagrams or job titles.
We find ourselves explaining modern versions of two very
old history lessons, what Alexis de Toqueville reported long
ago in Europe about the uniquely open processes of American
lawmaking and its modern derivative, rulemaking; and Dr. Harvey
Wiley's discussions with President Theodore Roosevelt at the
beginning of the last century about the importance of science-
based regulatory decisions. From a world perspective, FDA's
utilization of public issue meetings, access to agency
information, voting advisory committees, requirements for
scientific evidence and reliance on scientific facts in its
decisionmaking processes are more uniquely American than we may
realize. The interplay of these features into an independent
regulatory function that coexists with prescribed congressional
and judicial roles constitutes the most envied regulatory model
in the world.
Today I want to share with you my priorities for preserving
this capability and for preserving the agency's commitments to
and credibility with the American public. As we begin the 21st
century, fiscal year 2001 will be critically important for FDA
because so much of our environment is changing rapidly and our
capability to understand, adapt, and respond will be stretched
to new limits. To maintain our strength, we must strengthen our
science; we must address the highest priority risks; we must
engage in effective collaborative and leveraged activities; and
we must design ever more predictable, timely, and transparent
regulatory processes.
Stronger science. FDA's commitment to assuring safe
products rests squarely on our ability to keep pace with the
explosion in scientific advances and then to use our knowledge
to assure safe products. We must apply our intellectual capital
at every point in the life cycle of the product. We can apply
this science at the point when the new technology arrives and
when it is absolutely essential to steward these products, many
of them lifesaving, to the market.
FDA is the regulatory gateway through which an estimated
$50 billion in annual biomedical research and development
investment must pass and be judged. You and your colleagues in
the Congress have overseen a major expansion of Federal
research, biomedical research in recent years, and those
investments will pay dividends many times over for all of us.
FDA can deliver when properly resourced. Congress'
authorization and support of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act
and its recent reauthorization is a prime example. Review of
drugs and biologics in the United States is now as fast or
faster than anywhere in the world and this has been
accomplished without lowering our very high standard for safety
and effectiveness. We want to be able to perform this well in
all of our products that require premarket evaluation. But this
will require being adequately resourced.
Assuring safety by managing risk. A strong FDA science
capability is equally critical in understanding and managing
risks associated with products that are already in the
marketplace. Each year hundreds of thousands of adverse
experiences are reported in association with foods, drugs, and
medical devices. In managing risk, FDA has always adhered to
the principle that the most serious risks should be addressed
first. The idea takes on added meaning, given the complexities
of our 21st century environment. You will see evidence
throughout our budget that the most serious problems are on the
top of the list.
To illustrate, the medical error initiative in the budget
emphasizes FDA working with other agencies across the
Government as part of the President's new and comprehensive
plan to improve health care through the prevention of medical
errors or misadventures.
Second, drugs marketed and sold from rogue Internet
pharmacy sites present real risk for the American consumer.
These have been made a priority for fiscal year 2001.
And we have addressed the most serious risks first as part
of the Food Safety Initiative. If provided the funding
requested, we will be able to inspect the high risk food firms
at least once a year. We would continue the work supported by
the Congress in the past which focuses our efforts in the
import arena by targeting imported produce that contain
microbiological pathogens.
Let me speak for just a moment about collaboration and
leveraging opportunities. Working with FDA's assets alone is
not sufficient to address the complex risk management
challenges that we face. Many of the initiatives in our budget
require our agency to work in concert with a broad spectrum of
stakeholders to strengthen the safety net for the American
consumer.
Because we regulate in a global marketplace, our
collaborative efforts must extend beyond our domestic borders.
In this regard, we collaborate with our foreign regulatory
counterparts in joint efforts that include setting standards to
reduce the risk of products to the consumer. Whether it is
within our domestic border or beyond, FDA undertakes
collaborative initiatives because all parties can unify behind
goals that are in the best interest of public health and
safety. With such efforts, we will be able to move our world to
better health outcomes.
Open, transparent, and predictable regulatory processes.
Another key provision of the FDA Modernization Act of 1997
directed our agency to consult with our many stakeholders on an
ongoing basis, to keep them apprised of our strategies and new
product decisions, and to generally make them an informed
participant in our regulatory processes. The relevant principle
here is that a confident and well-informed individual or
industry also becomes a partner in shouldering the management
of risks.
We intend to keep these communication channels alive and
humming. This spring we will listen at two additional formal
stakeholder forums, the first at Stanford University in March
and the second at Duke in April. At both of these sessions, we
will no doubt receive suggestions on how to improve our
programs and further strengthen our working relationships with
our constituencies.
These 21st century ways of doing business--strengthening
science, addressing the highest risk priorities, collaborating
effectively with our partners and leverage our resources, and
using open, transparent regulatory processes--must be applied
across the entire spectrum of product development, review, and
post-market monitoring. When we are able to play all these
roles effectively, bolstered by science and augmented by
partners who share our goals, American citizens can be
confident that an effective safety assurance system is in
place. FDA's budget proposals for fiscal year 2001 move us
toward that desirable state of affairs.
Before I close my remarks, I would just like to briefly
highlight for you the key elements of our budget request.
$42 million to enhance the science-based review of new
health-giving products so that they can more rapidly enter the
marketplace.
$30 million to enhance the safety of the food supply
through strengthening the key elements of the President's Food
Safety Initiative.
$20 million to replace the FDA's obsolete Los Angeles
laboratory facility. I would contrast the pictures before you.
Our L.A. lab with a modern facility of Cincinnati that you
provided the funding for us a few years ago. We need this kind
of facility in Los Angeles. This lab is the critical linchpin
in assuring the safety of a major portion of the U.S. imports,
particularly food, that enter this country.
$15.9 million to strengthen our systems which report on and
correct medical errors. This is an interagency cooperative
effort designed to reduce those 100,000 annual deaths that
occur from medical misadventures or mistakes.
$13.5 million to focus on domestic inspections of our firms
in order to target high risk violators and come closer to
meeting the agency's statutory inspection requirements.
$10 million to stop the illegal sale of drugs over the
Internet.
And $11.5 million as part of the President's comprehensive
response to possible bioterrorist attack.
$5 million to further the administration's efforts to
reduce smoking by the youth of our Nation.
In summary, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
fiscal year 2001 is the year in which FDA must cope with the
maturation of two of the most massive and significant change
forces the agency has ever faced. In 2001, the increasing
impact of molecular science, genetics or genomics in
particular, and the information revolution, especially the
Internet and its linkage to an array of real-time data and as a
new vehicle of commerce will combine their forces to change how
FDA regulated products are discovered, researched,
manufactured, distributed, marketed, and advertised. When the
world around us changes this much, we must be prepared to
respond in order to assure that products are still safe for
American consumers. Our credibility to provide valid assurance
is at risk without strong science, effective collaborations and
consultation, and even greater openness and transparency in our
processes.
I wish to thank the members of this committee, their staff,
and the staff of the individual subcommittee members for your
support during this past year. This committee has many legacies
from improved agricultural production to safer consumer
products to protection of the American farmer. I ask you to add
another critically important one to the list, bringing forth
the technological promise of the 21st century. If you provide
FDA the resources to do the job, I will commit to you that
those funds will be well and wisely spent.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I look forward to our discussions with this committee today
to ensure that we are able to fulfill our mission in this ever-
changing and challenging environment.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANE E. HENNEY
Mr. Chairman and members of Congress, it is my privilege today as
Commissioner of Food and Drugs to present FDA's plans and expectations
as reflected in the Administration's proposed budget for fiscal year
2001. One year ago, I told you that I was lured to renewed public
service by the dedication, energy and commitment of the talented people
in FDA. I was equally attracted by the enormity of the changing demands
upon the Agency and the difference this agency can make in improving
the public health.
Patients, researchers, health professionals, manufacturers,
educators, grocers, public sector administrators or just ordinary
citizens want a public health regulatory agency such as the FDA to be
fair, competent and, above all, credible. I have heard this message in
different words on many occasions in many settings this year. I believe
that the accomplishments of the past year will demonstrate that FDA has
done a remarkable job in maintaining the public's confidence and
credibility even though we face numerous unpredictable issues on a day-
to-day basis.
It may be all too easy for Americans to assume FDA's competence and
credibility because we have long enjoyed public confidence in the past.
However, from listening to my European counterparts, public confidence,
once lost, is not easily or quickly restored. A series of highly
publicized crises in Europe over the past several years have caused my
counterparts to ask: What is FDA's secret and how does FDA utilize
science and build consensus answers to so many inherently contentious
issues? The answers are not found in FDA's organizational diagrams or
job titles.
We find ourselves explaining modern versions of two very old
history lessons--what Alexis de Toqueville reported long ago to Europe
about the uniquely open processes for American lawmaking (and in its
modern derivative--rulemaking), and Dr. Harvey Wiley's discussions with
President Theodore Roosevelt at the beginning of the last century about
the importance of science-based regulatory decisions. From a world
perspective, FDA's utilization of public issue meetings, access to
agency information, voting advisory committees, requirements for
scientific evidence and reliance on scientific facts in its decision-
making process are more uniquely American than we may realize. The
interplay of these features into an independent regulatory function
that coexists with prescribed Congressional and Judicial roles
constitutes the most envied regulatory model in the world.
Today, I share with you my priorities for preserving this
capability and for preserving the agency's credibility with the
American public. As we begin the 21st Century, fiscal Year 2001 will be
critically important for FDA because so much of our environment is
changing rapidly and our capability to understand, adapt and respond
will be stretched to new limits. To maintain our strength: We must
strengthen our science; we must address the highest priority risks; we
must engage in effective collaborative and leveraged activities; and,
we must design ever more predictable, timely and transparent regulatory
processes.
Stronger science.--FDA's commitment to assuring safe products rests
squarely on our ability to keep pace with the explosion in scientific
advances--and then to use that knowledge to assure safe products. We
must apply our intellectual capital at every point in the life cycle of
the product. When consumers buy food items, drugs or medical devices,
they're purchasing not only the product itself, but FDA's implicit
assurance that the product is safe. To give them such assurance in a
world with so many new products, FDA must quickly understand these
sophisticated new products and the science within them and judge their
suitability for the market place. Timing is everything! Wayne Gretzky,
of ice hockey fame, was asked to tell what made him a successful
player. He said: ``I skate to where the puck will be.'' FDA is in a
similar position. We must be able to anticipate and access the cutting-
edge science that will be needed to regulate the products of future
technology. When this is possible, we can apply this science at the
point when the new technology arrives, and when it is absolutely
essential to steward these products, many of them lifesaving, to the
market.
FDA is the regulatory gateway through which an estimated $50
billion in annual biomedical research and development investment must
pass and be judged. During the President's State of the Union address
last month, he noted that innovations in science and technology will be
the key to miraculous improvements in the quality of our lives and
advances in the economy as we enter the 21st Century. He discussed the
remarkable fruits of research--much of it taxpayer funded--that promise
to improve both our health and the way health care is delivered. You
and your colleagues on other appropriations committees have overseen a
major expansion of Federal research in recent years, and those
investments will pay dividends many times over for us all.
If FDA is not in a state of scientific readiness when applications
are received, then we must either delay regulatory decisions on
important new applications until we have adequate knowledge or make
very conservative decisions in order to err on the side of caution.
Neither of these choices is good for the American people because they
delay the availability of critically needed treatment as well as result
in increased health and economic costs. A recent industry survey by
Pricewaterhouse Coopers concerning FDA's relationships with its
regulated industries reinforces the need for FDA to be scientifically
prepared. The survey concludes that FDA must invest in recruiting and
training exceptionally qualified personnel at all levels. So I would
urge your careful consideration of our resource needs as they relate to
FDA's scientific strength.
FDA can deliver when properly resourced. Congress' authorization
and support of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act and its
Reauthorization in the FDA Modernization Act is a prime example. Review
of drugs and biologics in the U.S. is now as fast or faster than
anywhere in the world and this has been accomplished without lowering
our very high standard for safety and effectiveness. We want to be able
to perform this well in all of our products that require premarket
evaluation.
ASSURING SAFETY BY MANAGING RISK
A strong FDA science capability is equally critical in
understanding and managing risks associated with products that are
already in the market place. Each year, hundreds of thousands of
adverse experiences are reported in association with foods, drugs and
medical devices. When we can apply cutting edge science to these
problems, particularly in cooperation with our health and regulatory
partners, as well as those in the regulated industry, we can quickly
identify significant risks and minimize them.
In managing risk, FDA has always adhered to the principle that the
most serious risks should be addressed first. This idea takes on added
meaning, given the complexities of our 21st Century environment. You
will see evidence throughout our budget that the most serious problems
are at the top of our list. To illustrate:
The medical error initiative in our fiscal year 2001 budget
emphasizes FDA working with other agencies in the Department of Health
and Human Services and with Departments across the Federal government
as part of the President's new and comprehensive plan to improve health
care through the prevention of medical errors and enhancement of
patient safety.
Drugs marketed and sold from illegitimate Internet pharmacy sites
present real risk for the American consumer. These have been made a
priority for fiscal year 2001. FDA will use prevailing Internet
hardware and software to focus on suspect web sites, and will convey a
rapid response team to deal with these sites. FDA also intends to work
very closely with State authorities and other Federal agencies in order
to expedite the elimination of this fraudulent activity. We also plan
to step up our efforts to educate consumers about the risks involved
and what types of sites or practices they should avoid.
Again, we have addressed the most serious risks first as part of
the Food Safety Initiative. If provided the funding requested, we will
be able to inspect the high risk food firms at least once a year. We
would continue the work supported by the Congress in the past which
focuses our efforts in the import arena by targeting imported produce
that contain microbiological pathogens. Your support has also allowed
us to invest in new science-based tools like PulseNet, a collaborative
project between CDC, FDA, USDA and state health departments, which uses
rapid analysis of bacterial DNA fingerprints to pinpoint the exact
source of food borne illness outbreaks. More of these detection tools
will revolutionize our ability to detect and prevent a wide range of
adverse experiences and to focus on the most serious ones first; but we
need resources to do this.
While we have identified the aforementioned as investments that
would be focused on high risk in each of our product review centers, we
must also focus and invest in applications that have the greatest
potential for providing widespread health benefits. A critical
provision provided by FDAMA is our ability to delegate to third parties
the responsibility for reviewing medical device applications in lower
risk categories. In this year's budget request, a Device user fee is
proposed to further encourage reviews to be performed by third parties
which will result in greater efficiencies for both FDA and the
industry. This allows our Agency's scientific review resources to be
dedicated to the more complex new products that often carry significant
risks but have the potential for great health benefits.
COLLABORATION AND LEVERAGING OPPORTUNITIES
Working with FDA's assets alone is not sufficient to address the
complex risk management challenges that we face. Many of the
initiatives in the fiscal year 2001 budget require our Agency to work
in concert with a broad spectrum of stakeholders to strengthen the
safety net for the U.S. consumer. A prime illustration of this approach
is in Food Safety.
Because we regulate in a global market place, our collaborative
efforts must extend beyond our domestic borders. In this regard, we
collaborate with our foreign regulatory counterparts in joint efforts
that include setting standards to reduce the risks of products to the
consumer. Whether it's within our domestic boundaries, or beyond, FDA
undertakes such collaborative initiatives because all parties can unify
behind goals that are in the best interest of public health and safety.
With such collective efforts we will be able to move our world to
better health outcomes.
Open, transparent and predictable regulatory processes.--Another
key provision of the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 directed our Agency
to consult with our many stakeholders on an ongoing basis, to keep them
apprised of our strategies and new product decisions, and to generally
make them an informed participant in our regulatory processes. The
relevant principle, here, is that a confident and well-informed
individual or industry also becomes a partner in shouldering the
management of risks.
A recent example of this principle in action is the success FDA is
enjoying in the ``Take Time to Care'' Initiative. This involves a
partnership between FDA, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores,
senior citizen groups, professional associations, business/labor
women's organizations and other health organizations. This partnership
effectively delivered an important message about safe drug use by
distributing a brochure titled ``My Medicines'' through more than
20,000 pharmacy outlets to millions of citizens. The intent was to
positively affect their use of medications. A national evaluation has
revealed that 99 percent of both men and women found the drug
information they received to be useful and 86 percent indicated an
intention to speak with their physician or pharmacist about their
medication.
We intend to keep these communication channels alive and
``humming.'' This Spring we will listen at two additional stakeholder
forums--the first at Stanford University in March, and the second at
Duke University in April. At both of these sessions, we will no doubt
receive suggestions on how to improve our programs and further
strengthen our working relationships with our constituencies.
These 21st Century ways of doing business--strengthening science;
addressing the highest risk priorities; collaborating effectively with
our partners and leveraging our resources; and using open, transparent
regulatory processes--must be applied across the entire spectrum of
product development, review and postmarket monitoring. The total safety
assurance system requires FDA's best performance at several critical
points. It starts with effective communication with industry prior to
the submission of applications, thus improving the quality of
submissions received and helping to reduce product development times.
Next, we must monitor the progress of new therapies as they are
developed, including the important responsibility of overseeing
clinical trials. Once a product is approved for the market place, we
must continue to assess and manage risk through regular plant
inspections and analysis of adverse event reports. Feedback from our
monitoring and analysis activities also influences future pre-market
review decisions and appropriately informs us so that directed
intervention can take place in the postmarket arena should threats to
the public health and safety arise. Interventions can take several
forms, including education, technical assistance and when necessary,
enforcement actions and product removals. When we are able to play all
of these roles effectively--bolstered by science and augmented by
partners who share our goals--American citizens can be confident that
an effective safety assurance system is in place. FDA's budget proposal
for fiscal year 2001 moves us toward that desirable state of affairs.
FDA Accomplishments
When I appeared before you last year I outlined five issues that I
considered to be my highest priorities. These were implementation of
FDAMA, strengthening the Agency's science base, implementing the Food
Safety initiative, assuring the safety of the U.S. blood supply, and
reducing young people's use of tobacco products. I am pleased to report
to you today that thanks to your continued support we have made
significant progress in each of these priority areas:
FDAMA IMPLEMENTATION
Last year I committed to you that FDA's energies would be dedicated
to carrying out both the spirit and letter of the Law. I am pleased to
report another year of exceptional accomplishments in this regard.
To meet the letter and spirit of FDAMA, a scientifically strong and
efficient FDA must join forces with other organizations to address
increasingly complex challenges in order to protect the public health.
While consultation and collaboration with our constituents is not a new
practice for FDA, the FDA Modernization Act made the collaborative
principle so central to the agency's operations that its implementation
required a fresh look at some of our long-standing practices. The
Agency's record this past year provides demonstrable evidence that FDA
is meeting FDAMA's expectations for outstanding effort and bold new
thinking.
FDA has continued working to implement the many specific
requirements of FDAMA. Last year I reported that the Agency had
completed over 80 FDAMA-related actions. To date, the Agency has
completed over 110 FDAMA-related actions with more expected; all within
statutory deadlines. Some of the initiatives completed within the past
year include: the OTC final monograph for sunscreens, a final rule to
exempt selected class I medical devices from pre- market notification,
a final rule that governs requirements associated with reporting
adverse events for medical devices, and guidance that grants market
exclusivity to drug sponsors who provide information relating to the
use of the drug by children.
Another key provision of the FDA Modernization Act was the
reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992. I am
proud to report once again that FDA has met or exceeded practically all
performance goals required. As I mentioned earlier, FDA has
demonstrated that if we are provided adequate resources, we meet or
exceed our goals.
Patients receiving safe and effective therapies they need in a
timely fashion is the primary public health benefit of this program.
The median approval times for NDA submissions in calendar 1999 was 13.8
months, but if the current rate of first review approvals is sustained,
2001 and 2002 median approval times may drop significantly. Median
approval times for priority applications submitted in calendar 1999
dropped to 6 months, which is more than twice as fast as the
corresponding times before PDFUA.
This shortening of development times also results in incredible
savings to the pharmaceutical industry. A report released this past
summer by the Tufts University Center for the Study of Drug Development
shows that clinical development times for new drugs in 1996-1998
dropped 18 percent from the period of 1992-1995; thus saving industry
up to $2 billion for the $140 million annual PDUFA investment. This
savings is realized not only because important new products go to
market more rapidly, but also because drug firms are able to operate in
a more predictable regulatory climate--one that makes their own product
development planning more efficient.
It is also heartening to note that several new products that
received approval this past year represented significant advances over
those previously available.
For patients with HIV and AIDS FDA's work in 1999 added several new
products to the growing number of treatments. One of them is Amprenavir
(Agenerase), a new protease inhibitor that received an accelerated
approval for use in children as young as four. Amprenavir attempts to
prevent HIV from making new copies of itself by interfering with HIV
protease enzyme.
For the elderly FDA approved new medications and indications added
to the treatment options for many of the 18 million Americans--mostly
senior citizens--affected with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis.
The Agency also approved a combination of aspirin and extended- release
dipyridamole (Aggrenox) to reduce the risk of stroke.
For people with diabetes three new products approved last year will
bring benefits to many of the 16 million Americans affected by
diabetes, a disease that can cause damage to the eyes, kidneys, heart
and peripheral circulation.
For people with hepatitis C FDA approved several new treatments for
the almost four million people in the U.S. who suffer from this
disease. Hepatitis C, is the nation's most common blood-borne infection
that poses a serious risk of cirrhosis, liver cancer and liver failure.
For people with rare diseases I am pleased, also, to report major
progress in our Orphan Products Program, a key program developed after
the passage of the Orphan Drug Act of 1983. Orphan products are those
that treat diseases or conditions affecting fewer than 200,000 people.
That program reached a major milestone last year by approving the 200th
designated orphan product. In 1999, 78 drugs and biological products
received designation as orphan products--a 16 percent increase over
1998. We estimate that past levels of sponsor orphan designation
applications may soon be doubled. Nineteen designated orphan drugs were
approved for marketing in 1999, including treatments for neoplastic
meningitis, ovarian cancer and hemophilia.
STRENGTHENING FDA'S SCIENCE BASE
As I have mentioned previously, strong science is critical for FDA
to safeguard the credibility of its regulatory decisions made at every
stage during the life span of the product. Science must underpin every
one of our activities including our consultation with product sponsors,
review of commercial applications, the establishment of product and
process standards, and the identification and correction of hazards in
the market. FDA science must also provide the foundation for all of the
Agency's negotiations on product standards in the international arena.
In each of these facets of FDA responsibility, the Agency must keep
pace with the incredible pace and complexity of new science
developments. The biomedical science community is developing novel
approaches to detect, treat, and prevent disease. If FDA does not keep
pace, our judgements and decisions may become risk averse and at times
slow, possibly wrong--or both. Neither of these is an acceptable
outcome. The Agency must build its own capabilities and have the
ability to leverage talents and expertise of scientists and scientific
organizations outside of the organization.
Let me provide a few examples of the importance of science to our
regulatory role:
FDA scientists have developed a single rapid technique (rapid
screen) that identifies as many as 13 common foodborne pathogens,
including Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., and Escherichia coli 0157H7
from one sample in a test that takes only 8 hours to complete. This
method is permitting faster hazard detection and removal of potentially
dangerous foods from the marketplace.
Our scientists also developed a test system that would help to
determine the extent of interference of cardiac pacemakers caused by
cellular telephones. This research has formed the basis of a standard
for implantable cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators that are being
proposed by the Association for the Advancement of Medical
Instrumentation.
FDA scientists have developed a transgenic model that can be used
to screen for toxicities. By using this model, scientists are learning
more about how specific chemicals cause toxicity in humans, and how to
extrapolate results from animal species to the human. Some of our
molecular epidemiologists have also worked with academia and industry
to develop and validate a microchip product designed to identify
individuals at risk for cancer and/or adverse drug interactions. The
significance of this chip technology is that it allows for researchers
to screen large numbers of people simultaneously for different types of
biomarkers, or potential disease vulnerabilities.
FDA has successfully launched the Product Quality Research
Institute Initiative (PQRI). PQRI is a non-profit corporation whose
mission is to conduct research to support science-based regulatory
policy regarding product quality.
FDA has also taken action to assure that our scientists keep pace
with and effectively monitor products that are produced by state-of-
the-art manufacturing and quality control technologies. This past fall
FDA launched a new joint training program focused on emerging
technologies of relevance to the Agency. The training is conducted in
cooperation with the regulated industry. The first of these courses
brought together more than 30 FDA field investigators, Center
scientists and field lab analysts to a Merck manufacturing plant in
Pennsylvania to address state-of-the-art sterilization methodologies.
Similar advanced courses are planned for the future.
These selected examples illustrate the direct and immediate value
of applying FDA's science expertise at critical junctures in the
regulatory process.
To remain a strong science-based agency, we must continue to assess
emerging technologies well in advance of their arrival on FDA's
doorstep. We must prepare for and remain prepared to meet not only the
public health challenges of today, but also the future challenges of a
rapidly changing science and technology environment.
FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE
FDA, in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and State
and local governments, continued progress towards developing an
integrated national food safety system. Your support has also provided
for mechanisms in the shortening of several significant outbreaks of
food borne illness, translating into fewer deaths and illnesses. In
1999, FDA placed particular emphasis on enhancing the safety of
imported food products. At the border, FDA initiated a 1,000-sample
survey of high volume fresh produce imports. Overseas, FDA doubled the
number of foreign food establishment inspections, conducted five
assessments of foreign food safety systems, and provided extensive
education and technical assistance on use of the Good Agricultural
Practices/Good Manufacturing Practices guidance for produce.
Other accomplishments in the food safety arena include the
following:
FDA and the U.S. Customs Service developed an Imported Foods Action
Plan to further enhance border surveillance. The Plan will be
implemented this year.
FDA conducted the second year of seafood HACCP inspections, with
priority to processors with implementation problems. FDA found clear
progress by most seafood processors, but also issued warning letters to
those firms with significant, unaddressed deficiencies.
FDA issued two guidance documents to enhance the safety of sprouts,
including guidance for microbiological testing.
FDA published a proposed rule that would require refrigeration of
shell eggs at retail and safe handling statements on labels of shell
eggs.
In collaboration with USDA, EPA and the Department of Commerce, FDA
completed an Egg Safety Action Plan that identifies the systems and
practices that need to be implemented to sharply reduce eggs as a
source of human Salmonella enteritidis illness. Implementation will
begin in fiscal year 2000.
FDA completed revisions to the Food Code to enhance the safety of
food prepared outside the home, including restaurants, nursing homes,
hospitals, and day care centers. The Food Code was adopted by agencies
in 15 states.
FDA continued the expansion of the National Antimicrobial
Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS), a collaborative effort among the
FDA, USDA, and CDC that monitors susceptibility to 17 antimicrobial
drugs in food borne pathogens from human and animal clinical specimens,
healthy farm animals, and carcasses of food-producing animals at
slaughter. Important augmentations of the NARMS were funded from the
Food Safety Initiative during fiscal year 1999.
FDA also provided educational materials to farmers regarding how to
prevent future outbreaks and the spread of the multi-resistant
organism, Salmonella typhimurium DT104, among animals and to human
beings. This was accomplished through collection of information from a
field study, several farm-based efforts, and molecular genetic research
on a Vermont dairy farm. On-farm poultry studies were initiated in five
States in collaboration with USDA to determine the management,
production, and drug use practices that influence the development of
resistant zoonotic pathogens. Studies examining the effect of the
prudent use of antimicrobials on chicken farms began in association
with the University of California and Michigan State University.
FDA and USDA collaborated with medical microbiologists from
hospitals in Mexico and Guatemala who are interested in initiating an
antimicrobial resistance monitoring program. This collaboration between
the U.S. NARMS officials and the Mexican antimicrobial surveillance
group represents the beginning of the first international human and
animal monitoring system for food borne antimicrobial drug
susceptibility surveillance in the Americas. The collaboration will
lead to improvements in the Mexican Surveillance Program, which will
reduce the possibility that contaminated food products will be shipped
to the U.S.
ASSURING SAFETY OF THE U.S. BLOOD SUPPLY
Last year I shared with you that more than 3.5 million Americans
receive blood from volunteer donors. The most serious risk that these
citizens face is the possibility of transmitting undetected diseases.
Blood shortages, however, can also present a life-threatening
situation. In February 1999, the National Blood Data Resource Center
(NBDRC), a corporation affiliated with the American Association of
Blood Banks, published a projection that the Nation's demand for blood
could exceed the available supply in the foreseeable future. FDA has
the responsibility for balancing the need for greater blood supplies
with the increased risk associated with more diverse sources of blood
and wider access.
Last year I indicated that FDA had developed a Blood Action Plan to
address these issues. I can report to you now that with your support
the Agency has continued successful implementation of that Plan. The
Plan is being jointly carried out by FDA, the Centers for Disease
Control, the National Institutes of Health, and the Health Care
Financing Administration. The Plan addresses highly focused areas of
concern such as emergency operations, response to emerging diseases,
updating and reinvention of regulations, monitoring the blood supply,
and ensuring compliance with blood regulations. Last fiscal year, the
Agency satisfied several key elements of the Plan:
The Agency completed a systematic update of the blood regulations.
As a result of this update, obsolete blood regulations were eliminated;
and guidance documents are now focused on those standards that are
enforceable.
Under the Blood Action Plan, FDA is harmonizing its new Biologics
License Application for blood products with its New Drug Application.
In addition, FDA, CDC, and NIH representatives have formed an Emerging
Infectious Diseases Committee that has developed plans for responding
to emerging infections that threaten the blood supply.
The Agency met its statutory requirement of inspecting all
registered blood banks and source plasma operations within the past two
years. Compliance of these establishments with current Good
Manufacturing Practice requirements now exceeds 95 percent.
Agency scientists responded to challenges by blood-borne pathogens
for which there are no vaccines or adequate therapies. Blood supplies
are often exposed to the dangers posed by such pathogens as HIV,
Hepatitis B & C, and Transmissible Spongioform Encephalopathies (TSE).
Because these pathogens have evaded known therapies, our strategy is to
test and disqualify donors and blood donations found to be contaminated
with these pathogens.
Assuring the safety of the blood supply is paramount; but FDA also
recognizes that assuring the availability of safe blood is also a major
public health challenge. To that end, FDA participated in a workshop
this month sponsored by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute,
entitled: ``National Strategy to Increase Blood Donation.'' Several
initiatives were reviewed at this workshop, including: considering the
use of previously deferred blood donations--e.g., therapeutic
hemochromatosis donations, using computers to simplify blood donor
interviews, and generally increasing donor incentives for
participation.
Challenges to the safety of the U.S. blood supply remain ongoing.
One of the Agency's most effective responses is to join forces with its
fellow health and regulatory partners to stem these threats. The Blood
Action Plan demonstrates such a united effort. I will keep you apprised
of further developments fulfilling this critical Agency priority.
REDUCING YOUNG PEOPLE'S USE OF TOBACCO
I reported to you last year that over 400,000 Americans die from
tobacco-related illnesses each year. Virtually all of these people
began the use of tobacco as children. Thanks to funds you and your
colleagues appropriated in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, FDA,
in cooperation with its federal and state partners, and with the retail
community, has been able to launch an effective enforcement and
outreach effort. We have early indications that these combined efforts
are starting to have an effect. The University of Michigan's Institute
for Social Research reported that although accessibility to cigarettes
by 8th graders was still very high (72 percent) that figure has been
falling since 1996.
Let me cite a few highlights of the program efforts in 1999 that
are contributing to this hopeful turn-around in youth smoking:
In the enforcement area, FDA now has contracts in place with all 50
states and 3 territories to conduct compliance checks of retail
establishments. This establishment of a comprehensive compliance
network exceeded all of our expectations. As a result, in 1999 we
achieved a 166 percent increase in the number of compliance checks
conducted. Existing contracts resulted in a total of 107,200 compliance
checks completed.
We also provided retailers with a mediation procedure to resolve
civil monetary penalty complaints and avoid litigation. Many of the
violators were small businesses such as convenience stores or gasoline
stations. During a mediation conference call, the mediator offers the
retailer suggestions for preventing future violations. This process has
resulted in almost all cases being settled to the satisfaction of the
retailer. They have been very favorably impressed. FDA has also
capitalized on information technology by designing and installing a
computer system to automate the program's processes and to develop and
maintain a list of retailers selling tobacco in each state. This is of
tremendous benefit to the states because it gives them a way of
tracking up to 1.5 million retailers who may be selling tobacco. It
also provides the States with the legal record that may be necessary
for later civil monetary penalty proceedings.
FDA has also been active in attempting to reach retailers through a
broad scoped advertising and education campaign. In addition to
reminding retailers and sales clerks not to sell to minors and to check
young peoples' photo identification, the campaign also urges customers
to cooperate with retailers to help keep young people tobacco-free.
Last year, FDA received the marketing industry's highest honor for
effective advertising, the EFFIE Award, for its advertising and
education campaign.
In addition to the priority areas I have outlined above, we have
also undertaken work in a variety of high profile and controversial
areas--bioengineered foods and dietary supplements, to name a few. We
are making strides in these areas, but each is a work in progress.
A final issue I raised with the Committee last year as a recently
confirmed Commissioner, was my desire and intention to restructure and
streamline the Office of the Commissioner in order to realign resources
and functions. I appreciate the Committee's support of my plans. The
reorganization is now complete. We are now undertaking an additional
step to reinvent many of our processes to make the Office of the
Commissioner and the Agency programs which it supports operate in an
efficient and effective manner. During the course of this past year I
appointed two people to key leadership positions in the Agency. Dr.
David Fiegel is our new Director of the Center for Medical Devices and
Radiological Health. He brings with him an extensive background in the
academic sector as well as managerial experience in two of our other
product centers--Biologics and Drugs; Dennis Baker is our Associate
Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs. Mr. Baker was Chief of the Bureau
of Food and Drug Safety within the Texas Department of Health . and
while he was in that position he established a strong reputation for
being a regulatory `reinventor.' He will be a very valuable resource to
me as we work closely with the states to achieve our mutual public
health and safety goals.
Now, let me discuss our fiscal year 2001 request before you for
your consideration.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
No matter how many or laudable our accomplishments may be, there
still is much to do. This year's budget is reflective of the high
priority areas where we need your support to assure that strong science
will guide our decisions and ensure a strong safety net is in place for
the American Consumer. The fiscal year 2001 President's budget request
for FDA is $1,390,831,000--an increase of $176 million over FDA's
fiscal year 2000 enacted level. This budget targets improvements that
will: bring new products to market through strong science; and assure a
strong safety net for products on the market through strong science.
By strengthening both of these areas, FDA is assuring safety
throughout the life cycle of the product.
In addition, the budget identifies major initiatives of special
note and interest to the President and the Congress including Food
Safety, Youth Tobacco Prevention and Bioterrorism. The budget also
targets critically needed improvements to FDA's Infrastructure--
specifically replacement of the Agency's Los Angeles regional
laboratory facility, completion of the Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition in College Park, Maryland and continued support for
the Arkansas Regional Laboratory.
Let me briefly highlight our major initiatives in each of these
areas:
Bringing New Products to Market Through Strong Science
(1) $42 million to enhance the science-based review of new health-
giving products so that they can more rapidly enter the market place.
(2) Improving pre-market review of products submitted and
accelerating the process of generic drug review thereby reducing the
cost of medical care to the public.
(3) Expanding the scientific expertise to meet increasing demands
while maintaining FDA's high standards.
Assuring A Strong Safety Net Through Strong Science
(4) $15.9 million to reduce the number of Americans who die
annually from medical errors, currently estimated at 100,000. We would
significantly upgrade and make more comprehensive our adverse event
report systems, including those for dietary supplements and animal
drugs. With our labeling initiative we would also be able to reduce the
errors made because names of drugs sound similar.
(5) $13.5 million to better ensure the safety of products on the
market by conducting more inspections to support statutory compliance.
(6) $10.0 million to protect consumers from illegitimate Internet
pharmacies that inappropriately prescribe medications, increase the
risk of dangerous drug interactions or sell potentially counterfeited
or contaminated drugs. Our rapid response team would be supported with
upgrades to our computer technology used to identify, investigate, and
prosecute illegitimate Internet pharmacies. In addition, we would
enhance our public education campaign on safe ways to purchase
pharmaceuticals over the Internet.
Initiatives of Special Note and Interest to the President and the
Congress
(7) $30.0 million to enhance the safety of the food supply through
strengthening key elements of the President's Food Safety Initiative by
increasing inspection frequency for high risk food firms;
implementation of an Egg Safety Action Plan; developing nation-wide
standards for food safety; and expanding the research activities
necessary to support the entire initiative.
(8) $11.5 million to ensure expeditious development and licensure
of vaccines to be used in response to possible bioterrorist attacks;
and to respond to foodborne contamination.
(9) $5.0 million to promote and protect the health of our nation's
youth by reducing the number of young people who begin to use tobacco
products. Compliance checks and compliance-based outreach efforts would
increase with these funds.
FDA Infrastructure Improvements
(10) $20.0 million to replace our outdated and unsafe Los Angeles
laboratory facility. This facility is the site that must test many of
the products imported from foreign countries, particularly food
products.
(11) $5 million in one-time costs to move the Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition into a new facility at the University of
Maryland in College Park.
(12) $3 million to continue the next phase of the plan for the
Arkansas Regional Laboratory.
In addition, the Agency is requesting $14.2 million in proposed
existing user fees; and $19.5 million in proposals for new user fees.
Each of these requests is described in more detail which follows:
BRINGING NEW PRODUCTS TO MARKET THROUGH STRONG SCIENCE
New products entering the marketplace will change the face of
health care and will help us lead longer, healthier lives. They will
also bring enormous economic benefits, both in lessening the cost of
health care and in returning profits on the investments that are being
made in research.
We are requesting $42 million to enhance the review of new health-
giving products so that they can be considered in a timely fashion for
entry into the market place. FDA efforts will focus on: direct food
additive petitions; generic drugs; animal drugs; children's vaccines;
the blood supply; pandemic flu; and medical device re-use. The
requested funding for direct food additive petitions, together with
funds provided in fiscal year 2000, would provide full funding for this
important program.
FDA will use new funding to develop a focused effort in the rapidly
evolving field of food biotechnology. FDA requires scientific expertise
capable of reviewing products developed through the tools of
biotechnology and for providing public assurance of their safety.
ASSURING A STRONG SAFETY NET THROUGH STRONG SCIENCE
Medical Errors ($12.8 million).--One of my first initiatives as
Commissioner was to establish a Task Force to evaluate the system for
managing the various risks of FDA-approved medical products. The task
force issued a report in May 1999, entitled, ``Managing the Risks from
Medical Product Use''. The report confirmed that the high standard of
premarket review has been maintained even as our reviews have become
more timely. However, several key areas were identified where the
safety net for consumers and patients could be strengthened. This
report has led to a bold initiative in which FDA is a key participant
along with other major health agencies in the public sector as well as
health practitioners, hospitals, and states. In a related study the
Institute of Medicine (IOM) estimates that close to 100,000 Americans
may be dying each year as a result of preventable medical errors
because of failures within the complex systems of modern health care.
The aim of FDA's initiative in response to its own report and the IOM
study is to aggressively deal with the medical errors and adverse
events that are reported annually in the U.S.
Patients, doctors, nurses and other health professionals represent
a key human component of our health care delivery system. This same
system also includes a vast array of drugs, medical devices, blood and
other biological products that are regulated by FDA. While the causes
of medical error cover a broad spectrum, many involve the use of
medical products. Preventing the errors can save people's lives and the
health care system and society billions of dollars annually in
unnecessary costs. FDA is working with agencies within DHHS and across
the Federal government to develop and implement strategies to prevent
medical errors.
Features that contribute to errors in actual product use are not
always identifiable before FDA approval. Once products are widely used
in today's complex and fast-paced healthcare delivery system, these
``human factors'' can emerge as safety risks. The Agency has a number
of surveillance systems to identify harm resulting from use of FDA-
regulated products. We receive problem reports from hospitals, other
health-care facilities and individual health care professionals. When
the FDA is alerted to problems with a medical product, we conduct a
thorough safety analysis using medical and scientific experts to
identify critical factors causing the problem, and to identify
problematic product features and safety procedures. To prevent further
harm to patients, FDA takes actions necessary to minimize problems
including communicating with doctors, other health professionals, and
patients and requiring changes to the medical product. The ``lessons
learned'' about safe product features are incorporated into the
Agency's review of future products.
Recent and dramatic increases in the complexity and numbers of
newly-approved medical products, the trend toward their increased
patient use, and increased time and cost pressures on health care
providers, have raised the level of risk for human error in the use of
medical products. While FDA receives over 300,000 reports each year, it
is known that the vast majority of incidents are not reported.
The estimated costs for these medical errors are as high as $29
billion a year. Increased resources will allow the agency to elicit
more complete reporting as well as analyze report data in a timely
manner and to invest in information technology to develop more
effective systems. The Administration has set the goal to reduce
preventable medical errors by 50 percent within the next 5 years. FDA's
request includes an additional $12.8 million. If provided these funds
we will:
(1) Improve the reporting systems for blood errors and accidents.
(2) Implement Phase II pilot of the Medical Device Surveillance
Network (MeDSuN) to address under-reporting and incomplete user
facility reporting of medical device errors. To accomplish this, FDA
will recruit over 150 hospital reporting sites into a national
reporting network. This system has the potential to be extended to
drugs and other areas in future years.
(3) Increase FDA's capacity to conduct multi-factor analyses to
correctly identify the sources of safety problems and potential
solutions. This includes establishing links to safety databases
maintained within community healthcare delivery systems and regional
safety surveillance systems as well as augmenting our expertise in
medical epidemiology and statistical analysis.
(4) Develop new standards to ensure that pharmaceuticals are
packaged and labeled in a manner that promotes patient safety.
(5) Increase FDA's capacity to act on safety findings, through
better risk communication to providers and patients who use medical
products; and partnerships with other health agencies and health care
organizations.
Adverse Event Reporting Systems ($3.1 million).--In addition to the
adverse events discussed as part of medical errors, FDA monitors
adverse events related to dietary supplements and animal drugs.
The dietary supplement industry is one of the fastest growing
industries in the world. Dietary supplement sales have nearly doubled
in the past five years and one study estimates that sales will increase
by over 90 percent over the next six years. Surveys show that over half
of the US population now uses some type of dietary supplement, spending
over $12 billion per year for these products. FDA estimates that the
industry markets approximately 29,000 of these products which are sold
under 75,000 distinct labels.
The number of adverse event reports related to animal drug products
has risen from about 1,000 per year in the early nineties to over
12,000 for 1999. Because FDA does not have the resources to process
these reports in a timely manner, they must be triaged and only those
showing the most serious health hazards are evaluated.
Consequently, a substantial backlog exists in reviewing adverse
event reports in both of these important areas. This budget request
will improve our Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) for animal drugs
and dietary supplements. This will enable us to provide greater
assurances to consumers that problems will be identified and action
taken promptly.
Inspectional Activities ($13.5 million).--FDA inspections,
laboratory analysis, and related surveillance activities are the
primary means of assuring industry compliance and thus consumer safety
once products are in use. New technologies, international regulatory
commitments, and increasing coordination with State partners require
new and challenging expansions of FDA's traditional inspection role.
FDA's ability to physically verify the safety of domestic and
imported products has eroded considerably in all product areas, even as
consumer expectations continue to rise. We are falling significantly
short of the minimum inspection obligations required by the FDC Act.
Import entries alone increased 14 percent in fiscal year 1999, and
over all, less than 1 percent of import entries are physically
examined. Even in conjunction with its State regulatory partners, FDA
is able to annually inspect less than a third of the domestic firms
within its purview. The number of foreign and domestic inspections for
foods, drugs, and devices (excluding mammography), has decreased from
28,000 to 22,000 between 1991 and 1999. This decrease of 6,000
inspections, or 21 percent, is due to the impact of the time required
to perform the increasingly complex science based inspections, the
almost static level of investigative personnel in the past eight years,
and the increases in imports. The total volume of FDA-regulated imports
is estimated to exceed $50 billion per year and imports continue to
grow in volume, complexity, and diversity of sources.
FDA requests $13.5 million in additional funding to improve
statutory inspection coverage for Human Drugs, Biologics, Animal Drugs
and Medical Devices, where the law requires specific inspection
frequency. The requested funds will keep the FDA from falling behind
the fiscal year 2000 level of inspectional effort. Through the use of
leveraging and expanding existing state contracts, FDA will make modest
gains in inspection coverage. Specific performance improvements are
identified in FDA's fiscal year 2001 Performance Plan. These funds will
also allow FDA to enhance laboratory testing for pesticides, chemical
contaminants and dietary supplements.
Internet Sales of Drugs ($10 million).--The number of people who
use the Internet for the purchase of medical products is growing
rapidly. Many consumers, including those in rural or remote areas,
those that can not leave their homes because of disabilities or who are
elderly, greatly benefit from the access and convenience features of
this option. However, on-line sale of prescription drugs also poses
risks for the consumer. When buying from a brick and mortar pharmacy, a
corner drug store, a strong safety net of State and Federal laws
exists. Prescription drugs are to be dispensed only with a valid
prescription, because they are not safe for use without the supervision
of a licensed health care practitioner and dispensed from a licensed
pharmacy. The availability of pharmaceuticals from the Internet can
greatly disrupt this safety net. Patients who buy prescription drugs
from Internet websites operating outside the law are at increased risk.
During fiscal year 1999, illicit or illegal operated sites grew
dramatically and we anticipate this trend to increase. This initiative
will enable us to track down illegitimate operations and educate
consumers by coordinating efforts with the states.
For fiscal year 2001, FDA seeks $10 million primarily to conduct
investigations and to carry out a public education campaign on safe
ways to purchase pharmaceuticals over the Internet. FDA would use part
of this request to support a rapid response team and to upgrade our
computer technology to identify, investigate and prosecute illegitimate
Internet pharmacies.
INITIATIVES OF SPECIAL NOTE AND INTEREST TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE
CONGRESS
Food Safety Initiative ($30 million).--The world of food has
changed significantly over the past 50 years. Consumers' diets are more
varied and include foods that are more susceptible to foodborne
pathogens. A much larger percentage of meals are prepared and consumed
outside the home. Vulnerable populations have increased by as much as
25 percent of the U.S. population to include pregnant women, children,
the elderly, and immuno-compromised persons. Finally, the number of
identified pathogens found in food has more than tripled. More to the
point, these pathogens are more deadly.
The Food Safety Initiative represents a multi-year, inter-agency
effort to respond to these changes and to improve food safety for the
Nation. This initiative has successfully built a strong foundation for
a state-of-the-art, science-based food safety system, and has promoted
partnering among the key Federal agencies (FDA, USDA, and CDC), States,
academia, industry, and consumers. A total of $218 million,
representing a $30 million increase, is requested for FDA for fiscal
year 2001. With this $30 million increase in funding we will:
(1) Expand research and risk assessment activities that provide the
cornerstone for a science-based food safety system. Food safety
research is critical for the rapid and accurate identification of
foodborne hazards; for regulatory enforcement; for the development of
effective intervention techniques; and for better detection of
antibiotic resistance. Risk assessment activities provide the
information necessary to allocate food safety resources to the highest
risks in the food supply.
(2) Develop consistent nationwide food safety standards. Standards
development includes technical standards for particular products or
processes, as well as product and/or process-specific guidance
documents and regulations. Such standards provide consumers with
increased assurance regarding the uniformity and safety of the food
they consume. In addition, by providing current, clear and
understandable expectations for industry, food safety standards provide
a ``level playing field'' for food producers and processors.
(3) Begin implementation of the Egg Safety Action Plan to sharply
reduce eggs as a source of human Salmonella enteritidis (SE) illness in
the U.S. While eggs are an important source of protein in the diet, an
estimated 1 in 20,000 eggs in the U.S. contain the SE bacteria and can
cause illness if eaten raw in food or not thoroughly cooked before
consumption. The Egg Safety Action Plan presents a comprehensive
nationwide strategy to address this important food safety and public
health concern.
(4) Expand domestic inspections to ensure annual inspection of all
establishments producing food that is at high risk of microbiological
contamination or high risk of causing severe disease. There are
approximately 6,250 such firms. By ``high risk'' we mean: infant
formula; ready-to-eat foods; heat and serve products; seafood; and low
acid canned foods and acidified foods. The new resources would also be
used to enhance FDA's oversight of state inspection programs, as well
as to enhance laboratory capabilities for the analytical support
associated with these inspections.
(5) Complete the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring
System (NARMS) by adding national and international data collection
sites. At this fully operational level, NARMS will provide an effective
early warning system to detect the emergence of antimicrobial
resistance among foodborne pathogens. Also, develop new methods for
routine surveillance of fluoroquinolone resistant Salmonella and
Camploybacter to gather the data needed to make informed risk decisions
concerning the use of quinolone-based antimicrobials in poultry and
antibiotic resistance.
(6) Develop new methods for routine surveillance of fluoroquinolone
resistant Salmonella and Campylobacter to gather the data needed to
make informed risk decisions concerning the use of quinolone-based
antimicrobials in poultry and antibiotic resistance.
Food Safety Initiative investments for the past three years have
paid tremendous dividends. Foodborne outbreaks have been shortened. The
risk of foodborne illness and death related to microbiological
contamination of both domestic and imported foods has decreased. With
the resources requested in fiscal year 2001, we will continue to
provide the U.S. with a consistent, uniform system to respond to
foodborne illness that will contribute significantly to shortened
outbreaks and reduced incidence of illness and death.
Countering Bioterrorism ($11.5 million).--Preparing for and
responding to an attack involving biological agents is critical. Our
task is made more complex by the large number and characteristics of
many of the potential agents, many of which are rarely encountered
naturally and have the ability to remain undetected for long periods of
time. There is often potential for secondary transmission as they could
be genetically engineered to resist current therapies and evade
vaccine-induced immunity. While there is a clear and unquestionable
need to develop specialized vaccines for these biological agents, there
are limited commercial interests or market incentives addressing this
problem. Thus, it falls upon the Federal government to ensure that such
vaccines are developed.
FDA is an important contributor to the Nation's capability to
respond to potential chemical and biological threats from bioterrorism.
The FDA's critical role in bioterrorism includes assuring that new
vaccines and drugs are safe and effective, safeguarding the food
supply, and conducting research for diagnostic tools and treatment of
disease outbreaks. Whether the issue is the development and use of
rapid diagnostics to quickly identify a suspected biological agent or
the capability to make available and administer large quantities of a
vaccine, immune globulin, or drug to counter the effects of a
bioweapon, FDA's research is the linchpin that makes it possible for
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), the Office of Emergency Preparedness (OEP),
the Department of Defense (DOD), and others to effectively respond.
FDA's research includes the development of new analytical
approaches and methodologies to determine if new products provide
needed benefits without causing adverse side effects that would
outweigh those benefits. This research includes both laboratory and
non- laboratory investigations to address FDA's regulatory
responsibilities.
Due to the highly toxic nature of the agents identified as
potential bioterrorist agents, specialized equipment and facilities are
necessary and needed in the FDA to understand these agents to prevent,
diagnose and treat outbreaks.
Other Bioterrorism activities that support FDA's efforts are:
(1) Vaccine development in collaboration with NIH, CDC, DOD,
academia, and private industry to ensure expeditious development and
licensure of vaccines for smallpox, anthrax, plague, tularemia, Q-
fever, encephalitis-causing alpha viruses, and botulinum; Coordination
of vaccine, drug and device stockpiling and preparation for emergency
response including rapid detection and decontamination procedures.
(2) Development of new diagnostic products, rapid methods
development, and comprehensive reviews for new drugs, therapeutics, and
vaccines including new uses of existing products; development and
stockpiling of specialized immune globulins; expansion of research to
identify toxicity indicators associated with biological warfare agents;
and, initiation of a monitoring system for chemical and biological
agents in feed for food-producing animals.
*(3) In collaboration with NIH, CDC, DOD, academia and private
industry, ensure that rapid methods are developed to detect biological
agents that may contaminate the food supply.
The fiscal year 2001 request is $11.5 million. This funding will
allow the Agency to expeditiously review and approve every drug,
therapeutic, vaccine, and anti-toxin to be administered to humans;
complete the FDA review process for safety and efficacy of the
pharmaceuticals, rapid diagnostics, and vaccines that are needed in the
event of a bioterrorist attack; and, to educate vaccine manufacturers
on the information needed for FDA approval.
Preventing Tobacco Use Among Children ($5 million).--Tobacco
products are responsible for more than 400,000 deaths annually due to
cancer, respiratory illness, heart disease, and other health problems,
representing five million years of potential life lost each year. Each
day, nearly 3,000 young people across the country begin smoking
regularly. Of these 3,000 young people, 1,000 will die prematurely
because as a child they decided to smoke. Conservative estimates are
that children and adolescents illegally purchase tobacco products 250
million times each year.
The Agency has devised a three-pronged approach of enforcement and
evaluation, compliance outreach, and product regulation. The $5.0
million in this request will be used to increase leveraging contracts
with State and local tobacco stakeholders to allow more compliance
checks of age and ID restrictions, and 100 percent re-checks of
violators. It will also be used to develop a reliable, national list of
tobacco retailers and complete installation of an information
technology system to automate the program's business and communications
processes, as well as increase the scope of the media campaign aimed at
increasing retailer awareness of, and compliance with, the tobacco
regulation.
Our overall goal--to reduce young peoples' use of tobacco--is a
goal upon which we can all agree. We will continue to work with other
organizations within the Department of Health and Human Services, other
agencies, the States, and other stakeholders.
FDA INFRASTRUCTURE
Los Angeles Laboratory ($20 million).--FDA's field laboratories
provide critical laboratory and analytical support to the domestic and
import inspection effort and are a key element in the science base of
FDA. The Los Angeles District annually reviews nearly 1.2 million
import line entries, almost 24 percent of the Agency total. In fiscal
year 1999 alone, the Los Angeles laboratory analyzed 22.9 percent of
the imported Foods samples taken by FDA. This laboratory facility is
over 40 years old, outmoded and unsafe.
FDA simply cannot remain in the present Pico Boulevard facility in
Los Angeles. We have the land and construction plans to relocate the
laboratory to Irvine, California. This will assure that products are
safe, provide the ability to partner more effectively with State
laboratory personnel, and provide a safe working environment for FDA
employees.
FDA requests $20.0 million to fund a portion of the construction of
the Los Angeles Laboratory and Office project. The request also
includes $23.0 million as an advance appropriation in fiscal year 2002
to complete the project. This construction will consolidate all three
Los Angeles district sites into one location, replacing three existing
leases totaling $2 million annually. The new construction will
concentrate the scientific talent available to permit better management
of the analytical workload and will provide significant improvement in
operational efficiency, especially during emergencies.
If funding is not provided, the Agency will be forced to shift work
to labs in other states, further from the point of entry. This will
obviously have an impact on FDA's import surveillance capability, the
southern California food import industry and our consumers.
College Park Relocation ($5 million) and Arkansas Regional
Laboratory ($3 million).--In 2001, the Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) will be moving to a newly constructed
facility in College Park, Maryland. Funds are needed to pay for one-
time costs associated with equipping and occupying this facility. The
fiscal year 2001 funding will support: telecommunications equipment and
necessary network connections, files consolidation and moving costs. We
will also continue construction of the next phase of the Arkansas
Regional Laboratory.
CONCLUSION
In summary, Mr. Chairman, fiscal year 2001 is the year in which FDA
must cope with the maturation of two of the most massive and
significant change forces the agency has ever faced. In 2001, the
increasing impact of molecular science--genomics in particular--and the
information revolution--especially the Internet and its linkage to an
array of real-time data that was unimaginable only a few years ago--
will combine their forces to change how many FDA regulated products are
discovered, researched, manufactured, distributed, marketed and
advertised. When the world around us changes this much, we must be
prepared to respond in order to assure that products are still safe for
American consumers. Our credibility to provide valid assurance is at
risk without strong science, effective collaborations and consultation,
and even greater openness and transparency in our processes.
I wish to thank the members of this Committee, their staff and the
staff of the individual subcommittee members for their support this
year. This subcommittee has many legacies, from improved agricultural
production to safer consumer products to protection of the American
farmer. I ask that you add another critically important one to the
list--bringing forth the technological promise of the 21st century. If
you will give FDA the resources to do the job I will commit to you that
those funds will be used wisely. I look forward to discussions with
this committee to ensure that we are able to fulfill our mission in
this challenging environment.
RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Dr. Henney, for your
statement.
I noticed that the first point you make in your statement
is about the scientific strength of the agency and how
important it is to maintain that strength and to be prepared to
deal with the challenges of regulating industries who are
utilizing the newest developments in science. You also point
out that there was a study by an independent industry with
regard to the relationship of FDA and its regulated industries
and concluding that FDA must invest in recruiting and training
exceptionally qualified personnel at all levels.
My question is, is FDA successful in its recruiting and
training efforts?
Dr. Henney. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would say that when
provided the funds, we have been very successful in recruiting
the kind of scientists and medical officers we need into the
agency. I would cite in particular those funding patterns
provided by the Prescription Drug User Fee Act and those
provided particularly through the Food Safety Initiative. In
very short periods of time, we have been able to recruit very
highly qualified people.
The trick is retaining them and keeping them at the top of
their game because this requires close attention to
professional development while they are with us. I would say
that particularly in the area of drugs and biologics reviews,
to meet those very tight performance standards that we are held
to, it becomes somewhat of a sweatshop for our reviewers to
keep to those time constraints, and the limitations on time
away to do the kind of training and reinvestment we need has
not been adequate in the past. Across the board in the agency
science is needed in our other centers, our Center for Devices,
our Center for Foods and other parts of the Center for
Biologics as well.
This, therefore is an overall issue for the agency in terms
of a time commitment and a funding commitment. We really have
to think about our reviewers as a 110 percent FTE, if you will,
rather than a 100 percent FTE if you are going to provide them
with time away for sabbaticals, retraining courses, and the
like so that they keep current.
STRENGTHENING SCIENCE BASE
Senator Cochran. You mentioned in your statement that you
have launched a product quality research institute initiative.
That is a training program focused on emerging technologies of
relevance to the agency. How are these initiatives working to
strengthen the agency's science base?
Dr. Henney. Those are two separate initiatives, Mr.
Chairman. The product quality research institute was launched
this past year. It really is a leveraged or a partnership
opportunity that we have entered into with both professional
groups and industry to investigate more efficient methods of
answering research questions about drug quality and
manufacturing. They are particularly looking at issues related
to stability studies and bioequivalence measures. So, this is
using our resources in a leveraged capacity to look at issues
that benefit all parties.
We have also launched this past year, after the appropriate
reviews for conflict of interest and the like, educational
sessions, training sessions, if you will, jointly with
industry. We have had two successful training sessions where we
have taken investigators and reviewers from several of our
centers to an on-site location within industry that is looking
at an emerging technology so we will know what is going on in
their plant operations and that they will know what we will be
looking for as we would develop or inspect against standards.
These have been extremely productive sessions and we plan to
continue them in the future. One was held at Merck on barrier
isolation technology and one was held in Minnesota on issues
related to food and food safety.
PREPARED STATEMENTS
Senator Cochran. I am going to yield to other Senators for
questions at this point, and I am going to recognize Senators
for questioning in the order at which they arrived at the
hearing. My notes indicate Senator Gorton arrived first,
Senator Durbin, and Senator Stevens who has left his opening
statement for inclusion in the record and already made one
comment, and Senator Harkin.
Senator Kohl and Senator Burns have previous engagements to
attend, therefore I will submit each of their respective
statements for the record.
[The statements follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB KOHL
Mr. Chairman: I am glad to welcome our distinguished guests this
morning. Secretary Shalala, I am especially pleased to see you here
today. While most of the agencies under the jurisdiction of your
Department are funded through appropriations subcommittees other than
this one, the Food and Drug Administration is, of course, an exception.
Still, in all the years I have served on this subcommittee, the
Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services has never
appeared before us. I interpret your being with us today a welcome
departure from protocols of the past and a statement on your part of
the growing importance of programs under the purview of the FDA.
Dr. Henney, it is good to welcome you back. A year ago you appeared
before us not long having been appointed as Commissioner of the Food
and Drug Administration. Since that time, you have made great progress
settling in as head of that agency. My congratulations to you.
I will not here go into all the programs under the FDA nor attempt
to catalogue their importance for maintaining the health and safety of
the American people. The evidence of that is apparent on its face. I
would mention, however, the changing nature of the challenges before
your agency. A global economy means a greater chance that food or
disease harmful to us may be introduced on our shores either
inadvertently or otherwise. The ever-rising costs of health care,
prescription drugs in particular, is fast becoming one of the highest
priorities of an aging and demanding public. Even the unfortunate
specter of bioterrorism now hangs over our heads with new demands for
proper and rapid responses in the event such a cataclysm should ever
occur.
Your budget request calls for an increase above last year. I hope
we will be able to accommodate that need. As we proceed through this
year's budget process, and as we establish the level of resources
available to this subcommittee for all our responsibilities, I will
continue to place a focus on the importance of your mission.
I look forward to your comments.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Mr. Chairman, Thank you. I would like to first thank those who are
presenting testimony before the Committee today. We all appreciate you
taking the time to be here today.
It is quite possible that the Food and Drug Administration plays a
larger role in day-to-day life in America than any other government
entity. For this reason it is vital that we regularly re-evaluate the
methods and practices of the FDA to ensure the best interests of
Americans are being appropriately addressed.
Prescription drugs present ever-expanding medical opportunities.
The advances in medications mean continued development of non-invasive
treatments, enhanced quality of life, and expanded options in
preventative medicine. Just reading over short descriptions of today's
research initiatives gives us a glimpse of the future of patient care,
disease treatment and, most importantly, even the elimination of the
illnesses that have plagued us for centuries. It is truly exciting.
But is this to be a future that all Americans can afford? Is
Montana going to have the opportunity to take advantage of cutting-edge
advances in medicine? Our current course leaves behind those who lack
the financial resources to purchase the new generation of
pharmaceuticals. The same holds true for those who live in rural areas.
The pharmaceutical revolution is leaving them behind.
I am encouraged to see that the average time period for FDA
approval of a new drug has decreased since the enactment of the
Pharmaceutical Drug User Fee Act. But in the aftermath of PDUFA, just
as approval times have dropped the costs of drug approval have
increased. These increases are, of course, passed on to consumers, with
Senior Citizens bearing the brunt of the increasing prices.
I am very concerned about access to affordable drugs. Every day
there are new stories about people choosing between food and
pharmaceuticals. I represent a district where these problems aren't
just stories in the newspaper but reality. I don't think that Americans
should have to make this choice.
Generic competition makes drugs more affordable. They are as safe
and effective as brand name drugs, but cost much less. My concern is
that FDA is not helping to bring these products to the market as
expeditiously as possible. In fact, the statutory review time for
generic drugs is 6 months, but your actual review is 19.9 months.
Review of pharmaceuticals in a timely fashion is a central part of
FDA's core mission, but FDA is not meeting that mission. This is very
worrisome, especially when I hear that the review process is predicted
to lengthen to almost 21 months. How will FDA address this problem?
I believe it is time to change the system of dis-incentives which
discourage FDA approval of new, innovative drugs. I call for a return
to the concentration on the most important person in the health care
equation--the patient. I look forward to seeing these changes and the
positive results they will carry for all Americans.
Senator Cochran. Senator Gorton.
IRRADIATED FOODS--LABELING
Senator Gorton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I get to the subject of my opening statement, a
couple of questions on your direct responsibilities. As I had
worked in that direction for more than a decade myself, I was
delighted when the Food and Drug Administration approved the
petition to irradiate red meat. Even more satisfying is the
fact that the petition just reached the implementation phase
and several beef processors have employed that technology.
As prescribed by law, your agency was to formulate a new
label for irradiated food at the inception of implementation,
but that has not happened. Why not?
Dr. Henney. Mr. Gorton, we have, as you note, been working
in this issue of irradiation and labeling for some time. If you
will indulge me, I will ask Mr. Levitt to join me--he is the
Director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition--
to give you an update of where we are on that issue.
I think that we have also, in addition to this labeling
issue, been trying to attack another problem that may be
related and that is consumer confidence in irradiated products.
To that effort, we have joined with many partners in terms of
developing educational and informational material about that,
and perhaps Mr. Levitt could share both of those initiatives
with you.
Mr. Levitt. Thank you.
In terms of food irradiation, we did put out a brochure,
which really is an interim measure, not the rule you are
speaking of, jointly with a number of private organizations,
the American Meat Institute, the Food Marketing Institute, the
Grocery Manufacturers Association, the National Food Processors
Association, among others, to be sure that we educate consumers
about this important technology, what it is, why it is safe,
and why we believe it is making food safer for the American
public. This will be distributed widely throughout the country
as a way to get the communication to consumers, which really is
what the rule was trying to get at.
We did put out, as directed by the Congress, an advance
notice of proposed rulemaking last year to solicit public
comments and get the right views. Really the issue is should we
call it ``food irradiation'' on the label or should we use an
alternative term. Things like ``cold pasteurization'' have been
suggested.
What we found from the public comments is we really have
widely divergent views. There is one view that we ought to use
alternative terms because they view food irradiation as too
scary. The alternative is, as Dr. Henney said, in terms of
public confidence. We get a lot of comments from consumers.
They say, no, please tell us what it is. Tell us what it is,
educate what it is, and let us make our choice. So, I think we
are struggling, in terms of going ahead with a final rule
exactly, with what the right balance is to strike. That is why
the interim measure. We are working jointly with other groups,
as I said, on consumer education.
We also have instituted our expedited review for new
technologies, including irradiation, and we have a number of
petitions before us that we are trying to move through rapidly.
Senator Gorton. You are working hard on this then.
Mr. Levitt. Yes.
GENERIC DRUGS
Senator Gorton. Good. Thank you.
Again, Dr. Henney, on another subject, perhaps the single
step that FDA has taken in the last decade and a half has been
to implement the Hatch-Waxman Act on generic drugs. Obviously,
our people have saved billions and billions of dollars on this.
You were directed, as I understand it, to get the time for
moving drugs from a laboratory to patients down to 6 months. It
has come down, but it is still three times that length of time.
What is being done to reduce that time lag even further?
Dr. Henney. Mr. Gorton, actually I think this speaks well
or a bit to the first point and statement that you gave because
I have long learned that there are some things I can control
and others that I can only try to influence. On the issue of
pricing in the marketplace and making sure that there are
alternatives out there, this is one way in which FDA can be
exceedingly helpful to the American consumer who is concerned
about the price of prescription drugs; that is by running an
efficient and effective generic drug program.
I think that we have invested over the last 2 years in
terms of increasing our staffing in this area by some 15
percent. Some 10 FTEs were added in fiscal year 1999 and
another 11 this past year. I think you should also know that we
approved nearly 198 generics last year. 40 were first-time
generics, and we have some 68 sort of waiting in the pipeline
for other products to go off patent. So, this is a very
vigorous program.
Could it be better? Certainly any system always can be. It
always takes resources to do that.
PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICING
Senator Gorton. Well, let us go on to the other question
then. Obviously, this is not your direct responsibility, but
speak to me to this price discrimination and to the most unjust
burden, it seems to me, that is being imposed on all Americans
in the cost of their prescription drugs by the kinds of price
controls in other countries that simply seem to me to be
designed to say that they will not contribute to the research
and development. They will pay the cost of the pill after it
has been developed and not much more than that. We do all the
work in the United States and our reward is that our people
either pay way more for many prescription drugs at least or, if
they are fortunate and live close to a border, they can get
onto a bus and go to Canada or Mexico and come back with those
drugs at a much lower price. Just speak to that proposition in
general, will you? It is hard to come up with a greater
injustice in the field of health care than that one.
Dr. Henney. Mr. Gorton, I would speak to you in two ways.
As a doctor and as a daughter, I am very concerned about this
pricing issue. I see its impact not only on the patients that I
used to care for that would make not good decisions because of
the price of medication, and as a daughter who has--I cannot
classify them as elderly parents, even though they are both in
their eighties. They run around too much to be called elderly
but they are concerned about this whole issue of the price of
prescription drugs and the constraints that it puts on
decisionmaking.
But speaking to you as both a doctor and a Commissioner, I
also have to be concerned about safety, particularly as people
make choices about purchasing products from other countries and
whether that is a safe practice or not. So, I would just get
that out as a general premise.
I would also say that while the FDA Commissioner is given a
lot of responsibility and much authority, pricing is not one of
those issues that we play in directly except in the area of, as
I have said, generics and, except in the area of our support of
the administration's position on a prescription drug benefit.
We can only try to influence some of the other areas. What goes
into drug companies' decisions as they set their price on any
particular product is not something that we are necessarily
privy to, nor do we have much influence on.
But I would agree with your statement that there is much to
be questioned here in terms of the impact that pharmaceutical
drug prices ultimately have on the American consumer who needs
these products.
FOREIGN PURCHASE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
Senator Gorton. I have one more followup then. Is there a
question of safety with respect to people who cross, let us
just say in this case, the Canadian border and buy a
prescription drug by its brand name? Is there any question as
to whether that is not identical to what is manufactured and
sold in the United States?
Dr. Henney. Mr. Gorton, I think when people point to Canada
as a possible purchase site for products, and knowing the
strength of their regulatory system as well in our interactions
with them, there is perhaps a lessened concern about safety,
but still a concern. We do know that in Canada some medications
that are manufactured are manufactured at a different potency
or equivalence than they might be here. That could cause a risk
for an American consumer.
The trackability of a pedigree of a drug is more than in
question. Where did bulk product come from? How was it
manufactured? One is just put at increased risk when you do not
know all of those things.
I think as we have listened to our Canadian counterparts--
and it had already been a concern of our own--there is this
whole issue driving Canada to somehow be used as a front port,
if you will, for counterfeit or, in many ways, contaminated
product becoming available. So although I could not point to
any statistics in this regard, one has to be concerned about a
safety issue here.
Senator Gorton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Gorton.
Senator Durbin.
BIOTECHNOLOGY FOODS
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a series of questions and I will try to make them
concise and hope that we can elicit some answers for better
understanding. But let me start by thanking you, Dr. Henney,
and your team at the Food and Drug Administration. I have the
highest respect for your agency and your leadership. The
American taxpayers and consumers are well served by what is, by
Federal standards, a relatively small agency with a huge impact
on everyone's life in our country and beyond. So, thank you
again for dedicating your time to public service, as well as
the people who join you today.
We are blessed in this country to have a Food and Drug
Administration. Europe is now talking about establishing one
and it is long overdue. They are in the midst of an
international panic within Europe over genetically modified
organisms that find their place in the food supply. It has
created a ripple effect across the globe. The farmers in
Illinois and Iowa and other places are planting their crops
based on the concerns of European consumers.
I guess the bottom line question, since the FDA also
considers food safety is this, do you have any indication or
evidence that any genetically modified organism in America's
food supply is unsafe?
Dr. Henney. Mr. Durbin, I would respond to you by agreeing
that some of the issues that have been very hot items in
Europe, specifically with respect to food safety and now to the
issue of does the technology also create an issue of food
safety, have drifted a bit into our own country, although
coming to us first because of the trade issues that you
implied.
When we started hearing this level of concern last summer,
we decided to hold a series of three public meetings to
reexamine whether our policy, with respect to foods developed
using the tools of biotechnology, appropriately serves us. We
heard much at those meetings. We received over 25,000 comments
from those sessions. And we are now weighing all of those
things.
Let me just give you a glimpse I think of what we heard. We
essentially posed two issues.
One: Was there any science out there that should give us a
pause or cause for concern that would lead us to change our
current policy, which in essence has companies coming to us in
a consultative process if they intend to market a food that has
been developed using the tools of biotechnology? To date, our
experience had been that we have seen over 40 such products.
Issues that were raised were resolved, and we do not see any
issues with respect to safety of those that have been reviewed
and are on the market.
I think with respect to new safety issues, in general there
were none raised at these meetings, but I think that there was
some consistency of thought that the complexity of the science
that will be used in the future should be weighed as we
reevaluate this policy. And we are doing that.
The second series of issues really revolves around how does
one communicate best to consumers information that they may
want to know. Is an appropriate way through a website, through
disclosures at a point of purchase; or is it through a labeling
kind of process? Therefore, we opened up that question.
Again, just to give you a thumbnail sketch of what we
heard: We have heard four distinct messages.
One message was from one group who felt that it was not a
matter of food safety necessarily, but this group wants to do
anything they can to make sure that the environment is safe,
and because of environmental concerns more than food safety
concerns, want this kind of information available to them so
they can make those choices.
A second group clearly was more concerned about food
safety, and it was expressed not in terms of evidence that
could be pointed to in terms of an ongoing food safety issue,
but what might potentially happen in future generations. This
is a much more precise concern, but still more ill-defined in
terms of scientific basis.
A third group basically was saying--and this is a less
vocal group and yet a fairly sizable group--I am not really
concerned about a food safety issue here, but I am an American
who likes information. If there is some information out there,
I would like to have it. In some way I would like to know more
about these products.
A fourth group represented a minority at our meetings and
in our responses, and yet I hear, as I have traveled in Europe
and many of my colleagues have as well, that voice as a strong
voice from the developing countries who say do not do anything
to limit or constrain this technology. We need this technology
to bring both real health to our people and economic health to
our countries.
That gives you a glimpse into what we heard. We are still
looking at our policy knowing this kind of information.
DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS
Senator Durbin. Your answer, I am sure, reflects the
attention that you have given to this issue. I do not know of a
Senator or a Member of the House or anyone in public service
who would compromise the safety of our food supply. I am
looking to your agency, as I have for so many years, to lead
the way in telling us the bottom line. If there is danger
attached to genetically modified organisms of any kind, I trust
that your agency is prepared to tell us as much, and if so, to
take action against such things in our food supply.
I have a series of questions, and I am sorry I do not have
more time. I promise the chairman I will be as concise as I can
be.
Let me address another issue that is growing in interest
among American consumers: dietary supplements. In 1994, we
changed the law. We basically changed your responsibility in
the Food and Drug Administration. Dietary supplements are now
extremely popular in the United States--their sales have nearly
doubled in the past 5 years, and estimates are that they will
grow by over 90 percent over the next 6 years. Over half of the
American people now take some form of dietary supplement.
We changed the law in 1994 and said that basically your
agency did not have the authority to decide before these
supplements were put on the market as to whether they were
safe, but rather to monitor any reported bad incidents or bad
experiences.
You also, under that law, do not have the authority, as I
understand it, to establish a production or good manufacturing
standards. So, those who want to advertise that they are
selling certain supplements really do not have to prove at any
point along the process that they are, in fact, selling what
they purport to sell, the purity of what they sell, for
example.
I would like to know what you think about instituting
production standards or good manufacturing standards for
dietary supplements so that consumers would, in fact, be at
least getting a known product of a known standard without
potential contamination.
Dr. Henney. Mr. Durbin, yes, the Congress did pass in 1994
the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act, and it was signed
into law. As with any law that you pass, we must develop an
appropriate regulatory framework for that law, and we are busy
about the business of doing that. We have completed this past
year, under Joe Levitt's direction a comprehensive strategy
that looks at how we put in place an overall regulatory
framework for dietary supplements. It will take some time to
complete that work.
I would just give you an example. When we were given the
Safe Medical Devices Act in the early 1990's or the Medical
Device Amendments of the 1970's, it took nearly 15 years to see
the full impact of that law in place. So, we are working on
this, slogging it out bit by bit in terms of putting this into
place.
The issue with respect to GMP is that it is on our A list
for this year, and we intend, by the end of this year, to have
such a proposal completed.
SINGLE USE MEDICAL DEVICES
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
One of the issues that I raised at last year's hearing and
you responded to was the question of the reuse of single-use
medical devices. For those who are not familiar with it, there
are many hospitals across America which buy such important and
medically sensitive devices as heart catheters which are
labeled for single use only. Of the hospitals across America 30
percent pay no attention to that label and reuse that device,
sometimes on five and six occasions. In between, it is to be
sterilized and reprocessed, but patients are totally unaware of
the fact that the device in most instances was sold to be used
once and is being used over and over again.
A 32-year-old woman in Kansas had a heart catheter which
had been reused multiple times. In the course of a procedure,
the tip broke off and is now lodged in the right atrium of her
heart. The manufacturer of the catheter had never before had to
report one of the catheters breaking.
Now, what we tried to get across to you at the last hearing
was the importance of collecting data on how often this happens
across America with the thousands of single-use medical devices
that are being reused mainly without the patient's consent or
knowledge. Your MedWatch form, which your agency has produced,
is designed to really, on a voluntary basis, collect this
information as it relates to medications and medical devices.
And we asked if you could make special note of this on future
forms so that we could collect the data. But I am sorry to
report, doctor, that we have not quite reached that point. I
wonder how soon will your MedWatch form include a request for
information as to whether the faulty medical device was in fact
a single-use device that had been reprocessed and reused.
Dr. Henney. Mr. Durbin, with respect to the forms, when a
device is faulty, it clearly is reported to us. Although it
sounds simple, the issue of revising the form is not easily
done. We have taken the burden really on ourselves to track
back and see if a device was originally labeled for single use
or not. We still take your point that this change might be
helpful, but in the meantime, we are tracking back to see what
the labeling might have implied before.
Senator Durbin. I will suggest to you that since we had our
last hearing, you--at least your agency has exchanged
correspondence with the association representing these medical
device reprocessors, really admonishing them that they have
overstated the FDA's approval of their processing. So, at least
it is fair warning that this industry may not be following
standards that we would like. Consumers are totally vulnerable,
unaware of the fact that these devices are being used
repeatedly, and we have had some awful experiences. I do not
know what it takes, but I hope that we can move more quickly to
at least start reporting whether these are single-use devices
being reprocessed, reused at the peril of the patient that is
involved.
Dr. Henney. Mr. Durbin, I was only speaking to your issue
about the form. FDA has been quite active in this area during
the past year. We have developed a strategy which has been
published to look at the different risk levels of reuse. We
have published two companion guidances, one looking at this
whole issue of reprocessing and reuse, looking at the high,
moderate, or lower risk issues such as the likelihood of
disease transmission, and the likelihood of a performance
deterioration with reuse.
We also have guidance out with respect to our enforcement
priorities in this area, and we have been issuing warning
letters to reprocessors as well.
We have worked very actively with the Joint Commission on
Hospital Accreditation to engage their involvement with us in
this whole area of reuse. There are many activities going on
with respect to reuse and its appropriate use.
Senator Durbin. I am going to quit at this point but tell
you that I have two questions or observations that I will make
a matter of record here. One relates to the orphan drug
program, which I believe needs additional funding. I hope to
persuade my fellow members of the subcommittee to join me in
seeking that and, secondly, to some language that I included
when I was a Member of the House on this same subcommittee in
1994, when it came to the question of clinical trials. My
particular interest now is in gene therapy and the requirement
that was included in our report to your agency many, many years
ago that you track the individual patient data on these
clinical trials. I think that the emergence of this issue of
gene therapy and some of the sorry or sad results of the last
few months really, I think, call into question whether we
should revisit that and whether the 1994 advice to your agency
should be followed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Durbin.
Senator Harkin.
Senator Harkin. Mr. Chairman, I just first thank you and
ask that my statement be made a part of the record.
Senator Cochran. It will be, without objection.
[The statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM HARKIN
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary Shalala and
Commissioner Henney, for being here today to discuss the Food and Drug
Administration's appropriations for fiscal year 2001. I am looking
forward to hearing your priorities for the year.
I would like to especially thank FDA for its quick turn around on
FSIS's request to allow the use of plastic packaging for e-beam
pasteurization on an experimental basis. I think this is an excellent
sign of FDA's commitment to making new food safety technologies
available as rapidly as possible. I trust that FDA will continue to
move as efficiently on the other petitions for new food safety
technologies it has before it.
On FDA's budget requests, I am pleased to see that the
Administration has requested an additional $30 million in funding for
FDA under the President's food safety initiative. This funding is
absolutely vital to increasing FDA's food safety inspection and
research activities. My staff has been visiting border inspection
facilities and FDA-inspected establishments, and I can tell you that
FDA is still greatly underfunded relative to the number of food
products it covers. This money will be another step towards giving FDA
the resources it needs.
I note that FDA also has requested $20 million for renovation and
relocation of its Los Angeles laboratory facility. This facility
analyzes 23 percent of all the imported food samples taken annually by
FDA. It is the primary laboratory for all produce coming across the
border from Arizona and southern California, and is therefore very
important to ensuring the safety of imported produce coming into the
U.S. My staff has visited this facility as well, and I can vouch that
this request is greatly needed.
Lastly, I am also happy to see the President's budget request
includes a $5 million increase for the FDA's tobacco program. This
critical program does an excellent job getting enforcement dollars to
local law enforcement to reduce tobacco purchases among teenagers, and
includes important outreach and education efforts for retailers.
I look forward to working with the Chairman and members of the
Committee to ensure that the FDA's efforts in these areas are funded at
the President's request.
FDA-TYPE STRUCTURE IN EUROPE
Senator Harkin. I appreciate that.
Commissioner Henney, again I first want to thank you and
the FDA for its quick turnaround on the Food Safety and
Inspection Service's request to allow the use of plastic
packaging for e beam pasteurization on an experimental basis. I
think this is an excellent sign of FDA's commitment to making
new food safety technologies available as rapidly as possible.
I trust that FDA will continue to move as expeditiously on the
other petitions for new food safety technologies before it. But
I want to thank you for that rapid response on that.
A couple of questions I was going to ask have been covered
basically by Senator Gorton and Senator Durbin.
I am very happy to see that you are looking at, as you
testified, new terminologies and new phraseologies and how that
might work with respect to food irradiation. I think that is
also very encouraging.
Last fall a number of us met. I think you were there too,
Mr. Chairman, with Mr. Prodi, the president of the EU
Commission, and a number of us I know met with him, and the EU
trade minister from France, Mr. Lamy. But anyway, he committed
to us that they were going to set up an FDA type structure in
Europe. My question to him was, well, when? 10 years from now?
No, they were going to move on it right away.
As I understand, they have sort of moved on setting up an
FDA type of a structure in Europe, although I understand it is
going to be just sort of an advisory nature only. It was my
understanding, when we talked with the members of the EU last
fall, that it was going to have sort of a jurisdictional
umbrella over all of the member countries. That does not seem
to be the way that it is proceeding.
I am just wondering, have you been consulted? Has the FDA
been involved at all in helping resolve these regulatory issues
in Europe as they are trying to wrestle with this new
structure? Are you involved in that at all?
Dr. Henney. Senator Harkin, we have been very involved with
our counterparts in Europe as they started to discuss
particularly the issue related to food safety or a food agency
for the EU. I think that they were hoping in large part to
implement a model like the FDA that has a strong legal
framework, makes its decisions based on science, has both
standard setting and enforcement capabilities, and can inspect
and enforce against those standards.
As I understand it, their final framework is not reflective
of all of those elements as you have just stated. I think that
they at this point want to put this new model to use and modify
it as they get more experience. But our folks at both a policy
level, as well as a scientific level, were consulted by the
Europeans about how we do our business, and we tried to give
them the best advice that we could give.
I think the other thing that European countries, as well as
others in the world, are always struck by is how open our
processes are in terms of how we go about deliberating and
decisionmaking. Many of them were in the Washington, DC area
when we held our hearing on biotechnology or the bioengineered
food issue. They were the people in the rows with their mouths
open. They could not really fathom, I think, a governmental
agency really seeking a wide range of opinions and being
willing to listen to concerns across the board about a very
controversial issue. It is just not how they do their business.
Senator Harkin. So, you have been consulted. They are
looking at FDA as a model then.
Dr. Henney. Yes.
Senator Harkin. That has been done.
Dr. Henney. We are also supplying to the European Community
a summary of how we ensure protection at all levels of our food
safety system so that it is more of an open document rather
than just a private conversation with them as well.
DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS--EPHEDRA
Senator Harkin. Good.
The last thing I have a question about that I wanted to
cover with you is about dietary supplements. I was very pleased
to see that the agency recently pulled the part of its ephedra
regulation that was heavily criticized by the GAO, that dealing
with dosage limits. I know you are planning on shortly
releasing adverse event reports received since your original
proposed rule, and I understand that these will be accompanied
by an analysis of these reports.
One of the reasons the GAO was highly critical of your old
proposal is because they found that FDA failed to do causal
analysis, that is, to ensure that the taking of the ephedra
had, in fact, caused the adverse event.
My question basically is, will your new analysis include
this type of analysis in the new reports?
I am also told that as many as 3 billion servings of
ephedra products are consumed each year. Will your analysis
include this fact to put any adverse events in context? In
other words, if there are seven adverse events, put it in the
context of 3 billion servings or however many there are per
year?
Dr. Henney. Senator Harkin, as you note, we had a very
critical report from GAO with respect to ephedra. I think that
while the report reflected that they agreed that there was a
public health issue, the methodology that was used could
certainly use improvement.
We have, for that reason, undertaken an analysis of the
adverse events that have been reported since that time, looking
at them with respect to many of the issues that you raised. We
do intend to publish those, as well as the analysis that we did
in-house and was done by consultants to the agency. We then
intend to hold a public forum on this matter to see what all of
these analyses mean, not with the intent to have them
necessarily direct a regulatory action, but to really get this
information out into the public arena.
I think with the other point that you raise in terms of
amount of product consumed, we have widely varying ranges of
what that might be, and we will try within what we publish to
give a sense or a feel. But I do not know that we necessarily
know the right number. We do know that it is an increasing
amount over time. I would be interested if you could supply us
with the data that you have and the source of the information.
Senator Harkin. We can do that. It is again relying upon
industry tabulations of sales of ephedra-containing products
every year. I can only take their word for it. They have no
reason that I can think of to manipulate the figures, but I
will be glad to give you all that information we have on how
many servings there are because I think it really should be put
in a contextual framework.
Thank you very much, Dr. Henney.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MEDICAL ERRORS
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Harkin.
Dr. Henney, with respect to the medical errors initiative
that Senator Durbin raised, could you tell us what FDA's
current adverse events reporting systems include and whether
there are plans in this budget to strengthen the systems to
prevent medical errors and enhance patient safety?
Dr. Henney. Mr. Chairman, within the context of our medical
errors reporting system, we have systems in place at the FDA
for adverse reports to come into the agency. The systems,
however, are in serious need of upgrading to make them both
state-of-the-art and to make them comprehensive throughout the
agency so that it would include the adverse events that may be
related to drugs, biologics, blood, and the like.
Regarding adverse events that may be related to devices, a
few years ago, we piloted an approach called a Sentinel
Reporting System. That proved to be a strong and good way for
us to track adverse events in that area. Unfortunately, because
of limitations of funding, we did not go forward with expanding
that program.
Our request to you this year is really to lay the
groundwork for developing a comprehensive system. It would call
for $12.8 million to do that. That would allow us to get the
kind of systems in place that we need, upgrade some of the
systems that we have, be able to hire some of the types of
analysts, epidemiologists or biostatisticians, that we need to
make sense of the reports so that when we take actions based on
them that these decisions are wisely made.
GENE THERAPY
Senator Cochran. In light of the recent death of a young
man who died as a result of gene therapy treatment and the
admission by the National Institutes of Health that it did not
track adverse events in gene therapy, what is the FDA doing, if
anything, to reevaluate its oversight process to ensure safety
compliance by institutions conducting these trials and to
expand public disclosure of gene therapy clinical trials?
Dr. Henney. Mr. Cochran, the events that you cite have
prompted us to do several things. One is, although we are in
receipt of adverse events as they relate to many of our gene
therapy IND's, and we have standard operating procedures for
our interactions with NIH, we on a routine basis now, are
sitting down with our colleagues from NIH to make sure that
they know what we know and can act upon it as they should. We
are two agencies charged with doing different things, but we
must interact well to benefit all patients in these trials.
The other thing that we will be doing specifically with
respect to gene therapy is requesting that all investigators
engaged in this scientific area provide us with their plans for
clinical trials monitoring. We need to assure that they have
appropriate plans in place for that monitoring.
We also intend, along with NIH, to hold a series of
conferences on safety issues specifically related to gene
therapy. Some of those will be done in concert with their
Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee. Some of them will also be
done through our advisory committees within our Center for
Biologics.
There are a number of steps I think that both institutions
are taking to make sure that we do all that we can do and
should do to assure the safety of these trials and to assure
that patients have confidence in the system.
TOBACCO
Senator Cochran. In the conference agreement on the
appropriations bill last year, we included a directive to the
FDA to evaluate the feasibility of using automated
identification systems to try to reduce the sale of tobacco to
minors and the effect of compliance that such automated systems
might have.
My question is, what is the status of FDA's compliance with
this study requirement, and do you expect a report would be
made to the committee as suggested in the conference report
within 180 days of the enactment of the law? That would be in
late April of this year. Or when could we expect to receive the
report, if you know?
Dr. Henney. Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I would
like to call on Mitch Zeller who heads our Office of Tobacco
Programs to respond.
Mr. Zeller. Mr. Chairman, we put the report into clearance
and assuming clearance goes smoothly, you should get it
probably before the deadline.
Senator Cochran. Just as a matter of curiosity, what does
that mean, put it into clearance?
Mr. Zeller. It has to go through clearance within FDA and
the Department before it can come to Congress. Therefore, we
are confident that you are going to get it by the deadline or
you may even get it before.
DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS
Senator Cochran. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much.
There are questions about the dietary supplements that have
been raised at this hearing. When you came by the other day for
a visit prior to the hearing to talk about some of the issues
that we might ask about, I raised this as a question about
whether or not it would be appropriate to include in this bill
some funding for scientific studies on dietary supplement
products, those that are on the shelf, to assess their quality,
to strengthen the scientific understanding that we have about
the overall quality of supplements and how they may affect
those who are using them.
Dr. Henney. Mr. Chairman, as we develop the strategic plan,
if you will, or framework for implementing an appropriate
regulatory approach to dietary supplements, one of the key
elements of it was to develop such a capacity. When it came to
making choices within our budget and picking out the element
most in need in the dietary supplement arena, what we have
requested in the context of this budget is to upgrade our
adverse event reporting systems for dietary supplements.
Certainly the whole issue of undergirding a science base or
a research base for this program is something that we support
in principle. It was a matter of choices and priorities in
terms of risk that we used when we developed our budget
proposal.
Senator Cochran. Could some of these studies be conducted
by university laboratories that have proven expertise and
experience in this research area?
Dr. Henney. Absolutely.
Senator Cochran. Are you including in this budget request
any funds specifically for the purpose of exploring possible
improvements in the quality of dietary supplements or
understanding about microbiological contamination of dietary
supplements or related questions?
Dr. Henney. Most of the money that is in this particular
budget is directed at the adverse event reporting. I think that
there is about $200,000 within our total request that would go
for the kinds of issues that you raise.
Senator Cochran. Do you have any recommendations that you
have made to the National Institutes of Health or others for
funding clinical trials on certain dietary supplements?
Dr. Henney. Mr. Chairman, we have had, between our Center
for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and myself, interactions
with our colleagues at NIH, particularly through their offices
or center for alternative medicines to let them know where we
have issues that might need to be addressed. I would like to
provide for the record any specifics of those discussions.
FEW USER FEES
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
We notice the proposals in the budget for new user fees. I
think in this budget you assume the enactment by the Congress
of legislation to impose user fees that would amount to $19.5
million for premarket review of direct food additive petitions,
food export certificates, and the review of medical device
premarket notifications.
Do you have any reaction from the industry that they are
going to support these proposals, or do you know what their
position is? Are there legislative proposals that have been
submitted to the Congress on these subjects?
Dr. Henney. With respect to your last question, there are
legislative proposals under development. They have not been
submitted as yet.
With respect to the first question in terms of industry
reaction, I do know that they react to the words ``user fees''
and like the term ``review fees'' a bit better. I also know
that they are very hopeful of what we will be able to do with
respect to food additive petitions overall and probably would
appreciate a bit more track record on our part before
additional review fees might be imposed.
MEDICAL DEVICE USER FEES
Senator Cochran. The budget proposal contains a suggested
device user fee to encourage reviews to be performed by third
parties. I understand that an obstacle to the success of the
third party review program is that FDA has made only 154
product types eligible for the third party program and the list
of eligible products has not been expanded since May 1999.
What is the best way for FDA to encourage the industry to
use third party review? Is it to expand the list of products to
include more complex devices or not to impose a user fee?
Dr. Henney. Mr. Chairman, the third party review experiment
that is really outlined within the Modernization Act is
something that we are very committed to and want very much to
work. While the number that you cite is correct in terms of
categories, there were some 1,200 510(k) applications that we
received in fiscal year 1999 that would have been eligible for
third party review, but only a handful of these actually went
to the third party review. While third party review does
require a payment on behalf of a company, and there may be some
issue there, the third party review takes much less time to do,
some 57 days, as opposed to 107 days if the company chooses to
come in to the FDA, simply because we are also working on other
things.
We are looking at ways to expand the list of devices that
might be eligible for third party review. We took first the low
and moderate risk devices, as was intended by Congress, and
those for which we already had standards developed so that
those standards could be used by the third party in terms of
going about their review.
Our proposal here really looks at FDA in part as a conduit
for payment of the third party review and then would both
simplify and reduce our regulatory cost. And it also allows us
to tap additional expertise from scientists outside the agency.
SEAFOOD INSPECTION
Senator Cochran. The budget request proposes a new
administrative provision to transfer seafood inspection
functions and authorities, the personnel of the Seafood
Inspection Division and all related assets and liabilities from
the Department of Commerce to the Department of Health and
Human Services. It seems that this is something that would
require the approval of the legislative committees of the
Congress, and I am curious to know why the administration is
proposing that the authority for the program transfer be
provided in the appropriations bill and whether the
administration is also submitting legislative language to the
Congress to authorize the program transfer.
Dr. Henney. Mr. Chairman, yes, such a proposal will be
developed and submitted. This is an administration proposal
that would consolidate all of the Seafood efforts within the
authorities of the Food and Drug Administration. I would go on
the record that I am very interested in the assets, but perhaps
not the liabilities.
Senator Cochran. Do you agree with one suggestion we have
heard that combining these programs might undermine the
objectivity and credibility of FDA's seafood HACCP program?
Dr. Henney. I have not heard that. This program has
traditionally been of a voluntary nature, if you will. I think
that we would use it to complement what we do in our HACCP
program.
SEAFOOD EQUIVALENCY
Senator Cochran. Last year FDA indicated that it is working
to improve the safety and sanitation of imported seafood by
establishing equivalency agreements to ensure that exporting
countries have seafood inspection systems equivalent to those
of the United States. It also indicated it was in the process
of evaluating submissions for equivalency agreements from
numerous countries, including the European Union, and had plans
to visit six countries, including Australia, Canada, Chile,
Iceland, New Zealand, and the European Union before the end of
the year.
What is the status of the FDA's effort with regard to
seafood equivalency agreements?
Dr. Henney. Well, Mr. Chairman, as you know, this whole
issue of equivalency is a very lengthy process. It involves
doing a preliminary, side-by-side comparison of the different
regulatory systems to make an initial determination. Many
countries end up realizing, after they see the system that we
use, that perhaps they need to upgrade their systems, or if we
are not equivalent to theirs, we do some work ourselves. It
usually goes the other way, however.
The second is when we do an analysis of the two systems. We
then do this third step of the on-site site visits, which I
believe you are alluding to. We are required to do a
preliminary determination and then a final determination, both
of which need to be published. Then we go into negotiating the
final agreement.
Our determinations for Canada, New Zealand, Australia,
Norway, and Japan are all in their furthest state of
development, and they have all had their first site visit.
Canada's has been delayed about a year as they implemented some
major system changes, but we do intend to site visit and review
those changes sometime this spring.
Senator Cochran. Are any additional resources needed to
complete the planned work? Is the current level of resources
sufficient for that purpose?
Dr. Henney. Mr. Chairman, as I alluded to, these do require
very intense work, but I would ask Mr. Levitt to give you some
sense of actual resources required and resource needs.
Mr. Levitt. Congress did provide us, I am sure you will
recall, some resources specifically for this purpose I believe
in the 1999 budget. Part of this is that it takes time to go
through the steps. What we have done in this year's budget
request is to focus more on coming back to domestic
inspections, being sure that we are able to do those on an
annual basis as well, which will in turn help us with the
equivalency agreements. So, there is nothing in the budget that
specifically requests an increase in this area, but we do have
people who are dedicated to this work and will push it ahead as
the pace will allow.
INTERNET DRUG SALES
Senator Cochran. In the prepared statement submitted,
Commissioner Henney, you indicate that during fiscal year 1999,
illicit or illegally operated drug sales sites grew
dramatically. What was the growth in illicit or illegally
operated sites?
Dr. Henney. Mr. Chairman, the area of consumer use of the
Internet clearly has grown overall in terms of many product
lines, prescription drugs being one of those. We know that
there are several hundred sites now offering the sale of
prescription drugs. How many of them do this illicitly or
illegally is something that we have under active investigation.
Senator Cochran. The President announced that he would
submit new legislative proposals to Congress to address the
problem of illegal Internet drug sales. I understand the
proposal will establish a new Federal requirement to enable
consumers to identify legitimate Internet pharmacy sites,
strengthen the current penalty structure for illegal
pharmaceutical sales over the Internet, and provide new
authority to FDA to ensure rapid and effective investigation of
on-line sites.
To what extent is enactment of this new authority required
before FDA can utilize the $10 million requested in the budget
for next year, and has the legislative proposal been submitted
to Congress?
Dr. Henney. Mr. Chairman, the $10 million request is, in
essence, to provide us funding for the work we are doing in
this area already. Because we saw this as an increasing issue
and a matter of risk, we have been using hundreds of hours of
investigative time. Our budgetary request before you is to
focus on this as an identifiable issue and allow our
investigations to go forward as well. It is largely that.
There is also part of this program that is education and
public outreach in terms of the agency providing information to
the public about how to find a site or what to look for when
trying to use the Internet to purchase prescription drugs. The
budget proposal really stands on its own.
The legislative proposal, which would be forthcoming and
would have in it many of the elements that you mentioned,
really speaks to additional tools that we might need either to
aid our investigations or enhance the consumer's ability to
find a site that is selling products and is selling them with
all of the State or Federal laws in place.
Right now we clearly know that the Internet provides many
benefits, the access, the convenience, the privacy, but there
is no easy way for a consumer to tell whether the site they are
using is complying with all State or Federal laws. It is not
like going into your corner drugstore where you can see that
the pharmacy has been licensed, the pharmacist has been
licensed, and you know the doctor who wrote your prescription.
The Internet essentially cuts out that part of the safety net
system. We need to make sure that we have an equivalent safety
net for those who choose to use the Internet as well as for
those who choose to go to their corner drugstore to buy drugs.
FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY
Senator Cochran. Another emerging scientific dilemma that
you mentioned in your statement is the need for new funding on
the rapidly evolving field of food biotechnology. What is
actually planned by the agency for the use of funds that are
requested in this next fiscal year as compared with what has
been done in this year for this new effort?
Dr. Henney. The area of food biotechnology has not been an
area where we have traditionally done the research. The
research that has been done to develop specific crops, is
either supported by the Department of Agriculture or industry.
As we focus more and more on a stronger regulatory
position, however, and we have research questions related to
those regulatory issues and bioengineered foods, we need to
build this kind of a capacity. This would be done primarily by
joint efforts between our Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition and our National Center for Toxicological Research
where work in terms of regulatory matters related to
bioengineered foods would be done.
GENERIC DRUGS
Senator Cochran. There is also a suggestion in your
statement that you propose to accelerate the process of generic
drug review. I wonder how you propose to accelerate this. Can
you compare, for example, how you are going to use the
additional resources that are requested? Are you going to
increase staffing and funding levels for the generic drug
review, as compared to the current fiscal year or last year?
Dr. Henney. FDA is requesting in the drug area $2.3 million
to improve scientific knowledge and skills across the board.
That would include the generic drug area. We do not have,
within the context of our budget, targeted money for the Office
of Generic Review. We feel that reviewers across the board need
to be supported because both those medical officers or
scientific officers in generic drugs or innovator are reliant
on the capacity of the reviewers. We have not targeted this
request, but it is a more general request of $2.3 million to
increase our skill base across the board.
IMPORTED FOODS ACTION PLAN
Senator Cochran. You also mentioned in your statement that
FDA and the U.S. Customs Service have developed an imported
foods action plan to enhance border surveillance. Could you
tell us more about this surveillance effort?
Dr. Henney. Well, what we have done overall with the
Customs Service was really modeled by our two agencies at the
port site in Miami. We had several meetings during the course
of this past year in terms of what we could do as two
organizations to use the breadth of our authorities to make
sure that imported products coming into this country are safe.
Therefore, using some of Customs authority, we are looking
at the ability to refuse shipments, to mark shipments so that
we can decrease what we have faced for many years that is port
shopping, destruction of food products that pose serious public
health risk, the standard setting for importers, contractors,
or private labs that are going to analyze samples. The bond has
been increased for imported foods to full market value of the
product to deter illegal entry into the country, and also uses
of civil money penalties.
EGG SAFETY
Senator Cochran. The budget suggests that an egg safety
action plan at FDA, just completed in conjunction with the
Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection
Agency and Commerce, is to be implemented this year. I am
curious to know how this is going to work to prevent illness
and what level of funding is included in the FDA budget request
for next year as compared with the current fiscal year.
Dr. Henney. Mr. Chairman, within the budget request for
this year, I believe there is $30 million for our Food Safety
Initiative, of which $5 million would be targeted toward the
implementation of the egg program.
The issue of the safety of eggs and egg products really
centers around the issue of Salmonella enteritidis. We know
that there are some 300,000 cases of disease due to Salmonella
enteritidis every year. We also know that eggs and egg products
are consumed at quite high volume by the American consumer,
some 234 eggs per person per year. So, this is a very real
issue in terms of making sure that eggs and egg products are
safe.
We held a public meeting on this last fall. We intend to
hold two other additional meetings. One will be at the end of
this month in Columbus, OH and one in Sacramento, CA on April
6. We are looking at this issue with the USDA, to provide an
integrated approach to the regulation of egg safety and really
a farm-to-table approach. We are also looking at how we
communicate safe practices to the consumers so that they know
that cooking eggs thoroughly, not using raw eggs, is a strong
and good preventative practice for this problem.
Senator Cochran. That was going to be my question. Does it
take all of this to make us all understand that in order to
guarantee your safety, you need to cook an egg before you eat
it, and if it smells bad, do not cook it?
Dr. Henney. These may seem like very simple messages, but
clearly we have not gotten these messages across yet because
there are still many people who like their eggs sunny side up
and who still like to make their Caesar salad with a raw egg.
The issue remains.
BIOTERRORISM
Senator Cochran. I know that one of the serious biological
threats, bioterrorism is causing us to look at how we are
prepared to deal with this new threat including the development
of new vaccines and drugs, safeguarding food supplies, research
into the questions of diagnosing and treating disease
outbreaks.
Can you give us an update on your agency's efforts in these
areas and the level of resources currently being devoted to
them and whether additional funding is needed in the next
fiscal year?
Dr. Henney. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to. I would point
out that we got caught a little bit on this issue last year as
we made our request, through the Department. Clearly it went to
the labor appropriations committee which did not feel that they
needed to fund an agency in the agriculture appropriation
committee. As a result, we did not receive funding in this area
last year.
Nevertheless, we have received some one-time funding from
the Department to proceed with some matters related to vaccine
research in anthrax, smallpox, and the VIG, or that which is
associated with immunoglobulin.
You have in the budget request before you this year--and we
did convince our colleagues in the Department to let us ask you
rather than them--an $11.5 million request for our efforts in
bioterrorism. This would largely go for the vaccine issue and
vaccine development, but also for the important issue of
stockpiling antibiotics that would require the efforts of the
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and the National Center
for Toxicological Research in terms of looking at important
research issues either related to food as a vehicle for a
bioterrorist attack or neurotoxicity related to some of the
products that may be used by a bioterrorist.
Senator Cochran. You mentioned the Department of HHS and
Labor appropriations bill confusion. I wonder to what extent
are FDA's activities in this area dependent on those of other
Federal agencies and the funding that other agencies get for
their part of the obligation?
Dr. Henney. Well, in the matter of bioterrorism, we are
coordinated at really the highest level. But our efforts and
plans really require us seeking the funding from, of course,
the appropriate and separate committees of Congress. In terms
of what we do in this area, however particularly our knowledge
and interaction with the other agencies of our own Department,
as well as those of the Department of Defense, is critical if
we are to make an appropriate response to a bioterrorist attack
or to prevention of such an attack. Clearly, that kind of
coordination needs to continue.
Senator Cochran. Dr. Henney, I do not have any other
questions. I do want to repeat my commendation of you and the
work you are doing at the agency. I am impressed with the
commitment that you have made to improving the work at the
agency, strengthening the scientific base. I agree with you. It
has to be a top priority. We hope that we can find funds in the
budget to help you with some of the laboratory problems that
you have so graphically demonstrated for the committee this
morning.
Secretary Shalala's presence here indicates the commitment
of the administration and her Department to this area. We agree
that it is a very high priority for our Government, the many
areas that come under the jurisdiction of this agency.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
We will have additional questions to submit that others
might be interested in learning about. So, we hope that you
will be able to respond to those written questions in a timely
way.
We thank you very much for your continued cooperation with
our committee.
Dr. Henney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing.]
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
STRENGTHENING FDA'S SCIENCE BASE
Question. Commissioner Henney, you have stressed the need to
protect FDA's science base to keep pace with technological advances.
Please discuss what specific increases are requested in the fiscal year
2001 budget to do this.
Answer. FDA needs to be able to respond to a rapidly changing
environment and maintain the capability to understand, adapt and
respond. To do this we must we must strengthen our science; address the
highest priority risks; and engage in effective collaborative and
leveraged activities, and design ever more predictable, timely and
transparent regulatory processes.
We must be able to keep pace with the explosion in scientific
advances and then use that knowledge to assure safe products. FDA must
apply our intellectual capital at every point in the life cycle of the
product. We must be able to anticipate and access the cutting edge
science that will be needed to regulate the products of future
technology. When this is possible, we can apply this science at the
point when the new technology arrives and when it is absolutely
essential to steward these products, many of them lifesaving, to the
market.
A strong FDA science capability is equally critical in
understanding and managing risk associated with products that are
already in the market place. When FDA can apply cutting edge science to
these problems, particularly in cooperation with our health and
regulatory partners, as well as those in the regulated industry, we can
quickly identify significant risks and minimize them.
Congress' authorization and support of the Prescription Drug User
Fee Act and its reauthorization in the FDA Modernization Act is a prime
example. Review of drugs and biologics in the U.S. is now as fast or
faster than anywhere in the world, and this has been accomplished
without lowering our very strict and high standard for safety and
effectiveness.
FDA has always adhered to the principle that the most serious risks
should be addressed first. To illustrate, the medical errors initiative
in the budget emphasizes FDA's working with other agencies in the
Department of Health and Human Services and with other departments
across government as a part of the President's new comprehensive plan
to improve health care through the prevention of medical errors and the
enhancement of patient safety.
Second, drugs marketed and sold from rogue Internet pharmacy sites
present real risk for the American consumers. Again, we have addressed
the most serious risks first as a part of the food safety initiative,
provided funding, we will be able to inspect high risk food firms at
least once a year. We would continue to do the work supported by
Congress in the past which focuses our efforts in the important arena
of food safety by targeting imported produce that contain
microbiological pathogens.
Many of our initiatives in this budget require our agency to work
in concert with a broad spectrum of stakeholders to create a safety net
for the U.S. consumer. A prime illustration of this approach is in food
safety. In this regard, we collaborate with our foreign regulatory
counterparts in joint efforts that include setting standards to reduce
the risk of products to the consumer. Whether it is within our domestic
borders or beyond, FDA undertakes collaborative initiatives because all
parties can unify behind goals that are in the best interest of public
health and safety.
The budget request is for $1.4 billion which is a $176 million
increase over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The request includes
$42 million to enhance the science based review of new health giving
products so they can more rapidly enter the marketplace and $30 million
to enhance the safety of the food supply through strengthening key
elements of the President's food safety initiatives. These elements
include increasing inspection frequency for high risk food firms,
implementation of an egg safety action plan developing nationwide
standards for food safety, and expanding the research activities
necessary to support the entire initiative. The request also includes
$20 million to replace FDA's obsolete Los Angeles laboratory facility.
$15.9 million is included to strengthen our systems which report on and
correct medical errors. This is the interagency cooperative effort
designed to reduce the estimated 100,000 annual deaths that occur
because of medical misadventures or mistakes. $13.5 million is to focus
on domestic inspections of our firms in order to target high risk
violators and to come closer to meeting the agency's statutory
inspection requirements. $10 million is to help stop the illegal sale
of drugs over the Internet. And finally, $11.5 million is part of the
President's comprehensive response to possible bioterrorist attacks.
Fiscal year 2001 is the year in which FDA must cope with the
maturation of two of the most massive and significant forces the agency
has ever faced. In 2001 the increasing impact of molecular science,
genomics in particular, and the information revolution, especially the
Internet, and its linkage to an array of real time data and as a new
vehicle for commerce that was unimaginable only a few years ago, will
combine their forces to change how products are discovered, researched,
manufactured, distributed, marketed, and advertised.
ILLEGAL INTERNET DRUG SALES
Question. Commissioner Henney, you indicate in your prepared
statement that during fiscal year 1999, illicit or illegal operated
drug sale sites on the Internet grew dramatically. What was the growth
in illicit or illegal operated sites?
Answer. In an attempt to better comprehend the universe of web
sites selling drugs, FDA's Office of Criminal Investigations reviewed
thousands of web sites early this year and identified approximately 326
web sites involved in the sale of drug products. Because new web sites
are put up everyday and old ones are taken down, the total number of
these sites is subject to change and will not be consistent over time.
Also, due to differences in methodology and access to advanced
technology search tools, our information may not coincide with data
provided in studies produced by other organizations.
Many sites focus on selling prescription drugs and have been
referred to by some as ``Internet pharmacies.'' These sites offer for
sale, in some cases, unapproved, illegal versions of prescription
drugs. Some drug sale sites offer for sale other unapproved drug
products, products making fraudulent health claims, drugs for
recreational use such as products containing gamma hydroxy butyrate
(GHB), unproven cancer therapies, or drug products illegally marketed
as dietary supplements. While the increase in ``Internet pharmacy''
sites engaged in illegal sales is seen by some as a particularly potent
threat, FDA considers the non-pharmacy sites to be just as harmful, or
in some cases more so, and we have made efforts to step up regulatory
actions taken or initiatives by FDA, which include both civil and
criminal enforcement actions.
Question. How many Internet drug sale sites are there currently?
Answer. FDA's Office of Criminal Investigations reviewed thousands
of web sites early this year and identified approximately 326 web sites
involved in the sale of drug products. Because new web sites are put up
everyday and old ones are taken down, the total number of these sites
is subject to change and will not be consistent over time. Also, due to
differences in methodology and access to advanced technology search
tools, our information may not coincide with data provided in studies
produced by other organizations.
Question. Funding of $10 million is requested for FDA to stop
illegal Internet drug sales. How will this funding be utilized? How
much will be spent for investigations; how much will be for upgrading
FDA's computer technology; and how much for a new public education
campaign on the dangers of buying pharmaceuticals over the Internet?
Please provide level of funding and full-time equivalent staff years
included in the request for each.
Answer. Included in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget is $10
million for Internet drug enforcement. Because FDA's systematic review
of Internet websites began in mid-fiscal year 1999, this enforcement
work is still a relatively new undertaking, and we are learning more
about our resource requirements as we proceed. Approval of this funding
request would allow FDA to establish a significant and permanent
presence concerning Internet drug sales enforcement and redirect its
current resources back to its other enforcement priorities. Presently,
FDA supports its Internet investigations and enforcement efforts with
redeployed resources, at the expense of other critical FDA enforcement
priorities, and this trade-off cannot continue indefinitely.
Specifically, the $10 million funding request will be distributed
as follows: $9.7 million to fund 75 FTE positions in the Center for
Drug Evaluation and Research--CDER, and the Office of Regulatory
Affairs--ORA. These 75 FTE would work in field, laboratory, compliance
and support positions to provide for the investigation and analysis of
Internet sites suspected of engaging in unlawful drug sales,
distribution or marketing; take appropriate enforcement actions, as
required; and carry out public education campaigns on safe ways to
purchase pharmaceuticals over the Internet. Also included in the $10
million is $250,000 to fund two FTE positions in the Office of Chief
Counsel--OCC, to work with CDER, ORA--including the Office of Criminal
Investigations, or OCI--and the Department of Justice--DOJ, to bring
civil and criminal enforcement actions involving illegal Internet drug
activity. FDA has already begun a public education campaign to educate
consumers on the dangers of buying pharmaceuticals over the Internet
and will continue this campaign through fiscal year 2001.
Question. What attention, in terms of dollars and FTEs, is FDA
currently giving to the problem of illegal Internet pharmaceutical
sales?
Answer. Since mid-fiscal year 1999, when FDA began its systematic
review of Internet web sites, we have identified increases in the types
of web sites, as well as the range of activities, that appear to
violate the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In approximately 6
months, FDA has devoted almost 40,000 staff hours to investigate
hundreds of Internet sites. The Food and Drug Administration devoted
approximately $1.92 million in fiscal year 1999 to investigate internet
drug sales practices. The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
expended approximately $0.2 million and the Office of Regulatory
Affairs, principally its Office of Criminal Investigations, expended
approximately $1.7 million. The internet drug work was conducted with
resources in the Human Drugs program. Therefore, no resources were
shifted from other FDA programs; these resources were redirected from
other Human Drugs work.
ABSORPTION OF MANDATORY COSTS
Question. The fiscal year 2001 budget request for FDA salaries and
expenses requests increased funding to support an additional 416 full-
time equivalent (FTE) positions, yet the budget indicates that FDA will
have to absorb 106 FTEs as a result of mandatory cost increases for
which funds are not requested. If the budget request level is
recommended by this Committee, in what areas will FDA make these
staffing reductions to protect the priority areas for which funds and
additional staff positions have been requested? Please indicate
specific funding and staffing reductions by Center, program and
activity.
Answer. Since 1994, the agency has had to absorb pay raise and
other inflationary costs. The cumulative total through fiscal year 2000
equals $207 million, including $43.4 million in fiscal year 2001. The
agency has cut non-payroll operating costs as much as possible,
limiting travel, supplies, equipment, and significantly reducing
extramural research and methods development. These actions alone have
not been sufficient to absorb cost increases and maintain the same
staffing level. While the agency does use tools like delaying
recruitment for vacancies, overall the agency has had to cut staffing
in all programs except those supported by user fees. However, these
reductions fall far short of making available the amount required to
maintain staffing levels. From fiscal year 1994 though fiscal year
1999, non-user fee FTE have declined from nearly 9,000 to about 8,100.
Although FTE increases were provided in the fiscal year 2000
appropriation, they were targeted to specific program areas. Current
services absorption reduces the FTE available to perform at the
Agency's core activities of premarket review and postmarket assurance.
This has eroded the agency's ability to assure safety through
strengthened science and meet our public health mission. The agency has
had to limit research program and methods, limit staffing that can be
devoted to new product application review, and particularly in the
field, to reduce the numbers of inspection and sample analyses that can
be conducted. As a result, FDA staff, whether they are reviewers or
inspectors have not kept pace with the knowledge explosion in their
particular field of expertise.
The fiscal year 2001 request reflects a reduced staffing level of
160 FTE. Fewer FTE translate into fewer people to perform FDA's core
activities of premarket review and postmarket assurance. This hampers
FDA's ability to assure safety through strengthened science and meet
our public health mission. For the record we will include a chart which
depicts FDA's fiscal year 2001 payroll and inflationary costs by
activity and the FTE absorption.
[The information follows:]
CURRENT SERVICES ABSORPTION
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total current
Project service FTE absorption
absorption (FTE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foods................................... $12,289 48
CFSAN................................... 5,257 18
Field Activities........................ 7,032 30
Human Drugs............................. 10,250 38
CDER.................................... 6,943 24
Field Activities........................ 3,307 14
Biologics............................... 4,800 16
CBER.................................... 3,810 12
Field Activities........................ 990 4
Animal Drugs & Feeds.................... 2,478 9
CVM..................................... 1,802 6
Field Activities........................ 676 3
Device & Radiological Products.......... 7,331 29
CDRH.................................... 5,316 20
Field Activities........................ 2,015 9
NCTR.................................... 1,384 5
Tobacco................................. 978 ..............
Other Activities........................ 3,255 15
Other Rent & Rent-related Activities.... 609 ..............
Rental Payments to GSA.................. .............. ..............
Total, Salaries & Expenses.............. 43,374 160
Non-Field Activities.................... 29,354 100
Field Activities........................ 14,020 60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What success has PulseNet had in the past year in
pinpointing the source of food borne illness outbreaks?
Answer. PulseNet had a very successful year in rapidly identifying
common source clusters. This faster identification of the problem
permitted quicker interdiction and regulatory action, hence preventing
a significant number of additional cases. I would like to tell you
about some of the more noteworthy successes.
Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis--PFGE, patterns linked the
Salmonella Munchen isolates from orange juice and illnesses in multiple
states in 1999. PFGE by Washington State Health Department confirmed
the link after epidemiology detected the outbreak and the possible
association. This finding added to the realization that unpasteurized
juices pose a significant risk and spurred regulatory action in this
area.
Epidemiologic investigations linked several clusters of Salmonella
Munchen to a common seed source used to produce sprouts. Thereafter
PulseNet confirmed the epidemiology and helped to link other cases.
This was part of the evidence used to foster the new regulations on
testing sprouts.
Public Health Laboratory Information System--PHILIS, and Salmonella
Outbreak Detection Algorithm--SODA, detected the 70 cases of Salmonella
Newport illness in 10 states. PulseNet was used to confirm the link.
This information and additional information obtained by CDC implicated
imported Mangoes as the source of the infection.
PulseNet supported the establishment of the connection between
liver pate and cases of Listeriosis in a number of northeastern states
while extricating other possible food items.
In ongoing cases, PFGE technology is being used to determine the
potential link between recalled product and human illness and death.
Epidemiologists have used PulseNet to confirm links, and tie in
other sporadic cases, that have been made with other standard
epidemiology approaches. It has been useful in providing supporting
evidence in identifying a common source of infection.
PulseNet linked Salmonella from ill persons in the USA with those
found in imported dog treats made from pig ears. This finding
highlighted the role that certain non-human food items can play in
foodborne illness and provided direction for FDA's surveillance
activities.
The linkage established by PulseNet between lettuce and
Escherichia. coli O157:H7 infections in elderly humans in two U.S.
States helped identify the contaminated batches and hence prevent
further illnesses.
MEDICAL ERROR INITIATIVE
Question. Commissioner Henney, your acknowledge in your prepared
statement that the complexity and numbers of newly-approved medical
products have raised the risk for human error and that the majority of
incidents are not reported. How is FDA proposing to strengthen its
adverse events reporting to elicit reports and to assure more complete
reporting?
Answer. We currently rely on reporting--both mandatory and
voluntary--to find risk signals. FDA's current programs are designed
primarily to serve as a ``backstop'' for the approval process--to find
rare, unexpected side effects that could not be discovered in the
clinical trials. They are not intended to, and cannot, uncover the
incidence of adverse events, their prevention, or the overall health
and economic impact on Americans. Of the 400,000 reports received by
FDA, 21,000 of these describe fatalities and another 11,000 life-
threatening events. Over 60,000 additional reports describe problems
that required hospitalization or a prolonged hospital stay and 32,000
other reports concern medical device malfunctions. Despite the large
number of reports, studies indicate that 90 percent of adverse events
are not even reported to FDA at all.
MedWatch is FDA's program to encourage consumers and health care
practitioners to report serious and unexpected adverse events
associated with all FDA-regulated products. MedWatch adds this
information to the AERS and other databases and, if warranted,
disseminates new risk information directly to patient organizations and
subscribers and to the general public through the Internet.
Ideally, a fully funded program that actively enlists health
professionals in seeking out and reporting events is needed, as are
other types of data sources (for example, reports from poison control
centers). FDA pilot studies indicate that these are high-yield
strategies for finding product safety risks. Ideally, we believe key
steps in identifying and quantifying the risks associated with medical
products require full-scale operation of MedWatch, to include full-
scale, interactive, on-line reporting for health professionals and
implementation of MedSun, the Congressionally-mandated sentinel program
for medical devices. MedSun will actively enlist hospitals and
associated health professionals in problem reporting. Ultimately,
MedSun should expand to include reporting for all medical products.
Additional key steps include expansion of reporting to health care
settings other than hospitals; e.g., outpatient clinics, nursing homes,
and home health care providers; development of additional data to
monitor risk: accessing numerous additional sources of data already
collected for other purposes (e.g., emergency rooms, poison center
reports, organ transplant databases) to provide insight into the
clinical context of product use and problems encountered; development
of specialized systems for particular product risks--establishing
patient registries for novel products or those with potential long-term
safety risks; and identification of key obstacles and strategies to
improve problem reporting--conducting the needed research to lead to
improved reporting rates and quality. The fiscal year 2001 $12.8
million request will be used to begin to address this issue.
Question. You mention that the additional resources requested will
enable FDA to analyze report data in a timely manner. Is there a
problem with this currently?
Answer. The Agency receives about 400,000 reports of adverse events
associated with medical products yearly; 250,000 reports are for drugs
alone. We estimate that more than one-third of these adverse events are
preventable. However, the databases currently in place are not
sufficient to achieve this task. Current systems are not designed to
evaluate the rate or the impact of known adverse events. FDA is
requesting an increase of $12.8 million to address medical errors in
fiscal year 2001. With this funding, FDA will discover and act to
prevent more injuries that affect patients. The agency will complete
construction of its state-of-the-art computerized drug injury reporting
system. FDA also will begin construction of a hospital-based system to
detect medical device errors. In addition, the agency will enhance the
safety of the nation's blood supply by extending error reporting to
local blood banks.
Question. You also indicate that FDA will implement Phase II of the
Medical Device Surveillance Network. When was Phase I of this network
implemented and what is Phase II? Please describe how the Medical
Device Surveillance Network works.
Answer. FDA Modernization Act--FDAMA--allowed the option of
replacing mandatory user facilities reporting with a National Sentinel
Reporting Surveillance System, currently referred to as MeDSuN. FDA
initiated a pilot study to determine whether a select group of highly
trained reporting facilities could provide a statistical sample of
adverse event reports that would represent all user facilities. Phase I
of the network, called DeviceNet, was implemented in September of 1996.
A small business, CODA Inc., was awarded the contract to conduct the
study to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of a sentinel
reporting system for adverse event reporting of medical device use in
user facilities. Phase I involved 24 facilities.
Under Phase II, the reporting and feedback features of the network
would be refined and tested. The number of facilities would be expanded
to approximately 200-250 hospitals in three regions of the country, out
of 6,000 hospitals currently required to report. The results of Phase
II would be evaluated before FDA publishes a Proposed Rule, which will
describe the plan for a national MeDSuN program. The plan for the
national system will be based on lessons learned from Phases I and II.
So if refinements need to be made, it will be easier and less expensive
to make the changes at the initial stages of implementation, before the
system runs nationally. If MeDSuN is successful, FDAMA authorizes FDA
to discontinue user facility reporting other than sentinel reporting.
A comprehensive explanation of Medical Device Surveillance Network
or MeDSuN, and the Phase I Pilot Study was provided in the September
1999 Report to Congress ``Designing a Medical Device Surveillance
Network''. The report also described the goal of MeDSuN, to improve the
protection of the health and safety of patients, users and others by
reducing the likelihood of the occurrence of medical device related
adverse events and, if they do occur, reducing the likelihood that they
will be repeated. This system would increase both the quantity and
quality of reporting of adverse events and enable FDA to be proactive
in preventing injuries from medical devices. Both FDA and users would
have a better understanding of the causes of adverse medical device
events and be better positioned to identify ways to minimize their
occurrence and impact. MeDSuN would also create a two-way channel of
communication between FDA and the user facility community by enhancing
the quantity and quality of the reports that came in from designated
user facilities and by ensuring feedback to reporters.
A copy of the 1999 Report to Congress ``Designing a Medical Device
Surveillance Network'' can be found on the Internet at http://
www.fda.gov/cdrh/postsurv/medsun.html.
Question. How does FDA propose to improve the reporting systems for
blood errors and accidents in fiscal year 2001?
Answer. FDA proposes to improve the blood error and accident
reporting systems in fiscal year 2001 by publishing a final rule that
will: (1) expand the reporting requirement to include all
establishments engaged in the manufacture of blood and blood products,
which includes licensed and unlicensed blood banks, transfusion
services and Source Plasma collection centers; (2) establish a time
frame in which reports need to be submitted to FDA; and (3) replace the
terminology of ``errors and accidents'' with ``biological product
deviations'' to more clearly describe the types of events that must be
reported. In conjunction with the final rule, FDA will publish a
document that provides additional, more specific guidance regarding the
types of events that must be reported.
In addition, FDA will provide a web-based electronic standardized
format for the industry to use in submitting reports to FDA. FDA's
ability to track and trend events will be enhanced by the use of a
standardized format, which will assist FDA in providing information to
industry in an effort to reduce deviations. The information obtained by
tracking and trending these events will also assist FDA in focusing the
inspections of the blood industry. FDA will continue to post on its
website, the summaries of biological product deviation reports.
Question. The fiscal year 2001 budget proposes to implement adverse
events reporting systems for both dietary supplements and animal drugs.
What backlog exists in reviewing adverse event reports in both these
areas now, and how will the systems proposed to be funded for fiscal
year 2001 improve the review of these reports?
Answer. In fiscal year 2001, FDA is requesting $2.5 million and 2
FTE to begin the process of modernizing the Adverse Event Monitoring
System for Dietary Supplements, including upgrading and automating
record management and improving signal and report generation
capabilities. Included in these efforts also are the clinical reviews
and follow-up. We estimate that our current backlog would require
approximately 6 FTE, over a significant period of time, to properly
organize, paginate, redact each file and finally scan or rescan these
files into the new system.
Specific program goals have been identified and will focus on four
strategic areas. The first of these strategic areas is Systems
Enhancement. This will improve adverse event report monitoring system
capability by enhancing the data systems and integrating them into the
Agency-wide adverse event report monitoring system program. The second
of these strategic areas is Timely Release of Reports. This will reduce
CFSAN's response time to Freedom of Information Act inquiries. Another
area is Clinical Evaluation and Follow-up. This will institute an
efficient system for the monitoring, clinical evaluation, and timely
regulatory follow-up of significant adverse event reports. The fourth
area is Outreach, designed to educate consumers and health care
professionals on how to use the adverse event reporting system. These
changes will be implemented as resources allow.
FDA is requesting $0.6 million and 3 FTE to provide contractor
staff, and provide for maintenance and data entry and evaluation
enhancements for Adverse Event Reports and Drug Experience Reports for
drugs given to animals.
We currently have a backlog of 6,000 adverse event reports on
animal drugs. Currently, FDA only triages about 40 percent of the
12,000 annual incoming animal drug adverse event reports. FDA triages
these reports because there simply are not enough resources to
thoroughly review all reports. Triage allows us to review those that
pose the most serious potential of risk or harm. About 20 percent of
the total 12,000 reports received are thoroughly reviewed and
evaluated. The additional funds would be used to increase our triage
level from 40 to 60 percent and our thorough review level from 20 to 30
percent. This greater level of review would mean that more actual
hazards would be identified, and corrective action taken. This would
result in greater protection of human and animal risks, and increase
public confidence.
In the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition--CFSAN, all
initial reports are reviewed--about 50 to 60 per month. Additional
information is requested on all serious adverse events, which account
for 45 to 50 percent of reports received. There is a current backlog of
about 50 initial adverse events that are awaiting follow-up
information. Current resources do not permit us to perform certain
routine clinical evaluation components on each adverse event, including
preparing clinical summaries, coding and classification of adverse
events. In addition, we are unable to perform more in depth analyses
and risk assessments of adverse events grouped by particular product or
type of ingredient.
The preparation of dietary supplement adverse events information
for CFSAN and Freedom of Information--FOI, process includes records
management procedures, such as scanning and redacting, so that the
records can be publicly released. The current backlog in this area
consists of approximately 2,000 out of nearly 3,500 adverse events that
FDA has received for dietary supplements. The FOI backlog for dietary
supplement adverse events dates back to requests from 1998.
Upgrades to the database system, elimination of the clinical review
backlog and timely public release of adverse event information are
important because they affect FDA's ability to take timely actions to
protect the public health.
food safety
Question. Commissioner Henney, you indicate that the additional
funding requested for FDA food safety activities for fiscal year 2001
will enable FDA to be able to inspect the high risk food firms at least
once a year. What is a ``high risk'' food firm and how often is FDA
conducting such inspections currently?
Answer. High-risk establishments are those establishments that
produce foods with the greatest risk for microbial contamination and
those foods requiring specific components for a safe and nutritious
product. One example is an establishment that produces infant formula.
Another example is an establishment that produces ready-to-eat food.
FDA defines ready-to-eat foods as products that will undergo no or
minimal processing such as heating, freezing, washing that would
eliminate a pathogenic organism on the food. These products include
fresh fruits and vegetables, bakery goods, cheeses, and cooked pasta
dishes. Yet another example of a high risk establishment is one that
produces heat and serve products, that is, products which normally
receive a heat treatment, such as microwave, prior to final consumption
by the consumer. Such products are hazardous if the recommended heat
treatment is insufficient to eliminate pathogenic organisms which may
be in the product.
Establishments that produce seafood products, particularly
scrombotoxics, such as mahi mahi, pompano, tuna, salmon, swordfish, and
those susceptible to cigueterra are also considered high risk
establishments. Also included are establishments that produce molluscan
shellfish, which are eaten uncooked. Seafood not considered high risk
would be raw fish, not of the scromboid species, which require cooking
before consumption, such as trout, catfish and shrimp.
All low acid canned and acidified foods which if not properly
processed may present a potential hazard to health in the form of
botulism and are considered high risk. Examples of low acid canned food
include not only foods in traditional tin and aluminum cans, but glass
jars, and hermetically sealed pouches. Products which are usually low
acid include canned vegetables, seafood such as tuna and sardines, and
mushrooms. Acidified foods are low acid food products to which an acid,
such as vinegar, is added for preservation. Examples of these products
include barbecue sauces, salsas and pickles.
We want to be certain that we are including all firms that would be
appropriately considered to be high-risk. Therefore, FDA has convened a
working group from both the Center and Field components of the Foods
program to delineate the optimal operational definition of a high-risk
food establishment. We expect their definition by early summer. We
expect to inspect a total of 4,200 firms producing high-risk products
in fiscal year 2000. We plan to inspect all 6,250 firms currently
identified as high-risk firms in fiscal year 2001.
Question. What improvements has FDA made in the past year to
inspect imported food, particularly imported produce that contain
microbiological pathogens?
Answer. One of the improvements FDA has made in the last year to
inspect imported food, particularly imported produce that contain
microbiological pathogens, was to conduct a 1000-sample survey for
imported produce in fiscal year 1999. The primary focus for this
sampling survey was to ensure public health and the safety of the food
supply. Through sample collection and analysis, we established the
incidence and extent of bacterial pathogen contamination for selected
fresh imported produce to assist in the development of additional
policy for the Produce Safety Initiative. As of March 4, 2000, 689
samples were collected and analyzed and 95 percent were found negative
for the presence of E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella, or Shigella. The final
data analysis in addition to other data sources will be used to help
focus Agency efforts toward research and risk assessment needs;
industry training needs; providing advice to industry on best practices
that have been instrumental in minimizing microbial contamination; and
emphasizing the importance of implementing and following good
manufacturing and good agricultural practices.
This 1000 sample imported produce survey focused on eight imported
products: loose-leaf lettuce, cantaloupe, celery, strawberries,
scallions or green onions, parsley, cilantro and broccoli. These
commodities were analyzed for Salmonella, Shigella, and E.coli O157:H7.
The criteria used for selection of these commodities were based on
epidemiological outbreak data, such as involvement in outbreak;
attributes of the product, or structure, such as leafy; growing
conditions, such as grown near the ground; processing and consumption
data, as in normally cooked or cleaned; and the volume of product
imported.
FDA is focusing greater efforts on preventing contamination by
increasing education and outreach efforts to promote good agricultural
practices--GAPs, and good manufacturing practices--GMPs.
Furthermore, FDA developed with the United States Department of
Agriculture--USDA, and in consultation with industry and other
stakeholders, a guide ``Guidance for Industry: Guide to Minimize
Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables.'' This
guide details a broad approach to minimize microbial contamination of
produce through the control of water, manure, worker health and
hygiene, field and facility sanitation and transportation of produce.
In addition, FDA established criteria for assessing food safety
systems of individual countries by evaluating data from FDA and USDA
import information systems on fresh and frozen produce shipments by
tonnage, FDA Import Alerts, and known foodborne illness outbreaks.
Criteria for priority products are based on expected eating patterns,
such as fresh or cooked; and whether the produce has a protective
mechanism, such as skin or rind, that is normally not eaten. Based on
these criteria, FDA separated produce into three tiers, in order of
priority. The first tier includes all minimally processed produce eaten
raw with no protective rind or skin. This tier includes most produce
growing in or close to the soil. The second tier includes most tree-
grown fruit. And the third tier is produce that is normally cooked
before ingestion and those with a protective skin. Based on these
criteria, FDA generated a list of countries with a listing of key
exports: Mexico, Canada, Chile, Guatemala, the Netherlands, New
Zealand, Honduras, Costa Rica, Peru, Dominican Republic, Israel, Spain,
and Nicaragua. For food safety evaluations, training and technical
cooperation, FDA focused on those countries that have gaps in their
food safety system and require training and technical assistance.
Another improvement included increasing inspections of high risk
imported products that are susceptible to pathogen contamination. These
high risk imported products included ready-to-eat products such as
fresh fruit and vegetables and cheeses; heat and serve products,
seafood products such as mahi mahi, tuna, and swordfish); low acid
canned and acidified food (canned vegetables, pet foods, sardines,
barbeque sauces, and salsas) and infant formula.
I would like to provide you with a table that lists the foreign
foods inspections FDA accomplished in fiscal year 1999.
[The information follows:]
FDA FOREIGN FOODS INSPECTIONS, FISCAL YEAR 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country Product Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexico (6)...................... Cheese............ 2/99 thru 8/99
France (5)...................... Cheese............ 2/99 thru 8/99
Canada (1)...................... Cheese............ 2/99 thru 8/99
Germany (1)..................... Cheese............ 2/99 thru 8/99
El Salvador (1)................. Cheese............ 2/99 thru 8/99
Singapore (1)................... Cheese............ 2/99 thru 8/99
Ecuador (11).................... Seafood........... 6/99
Taiwan (9)...................... Seafood........... 7/99
Philippines (9)................. Seafood........... 5/99
Vietnam (9)..................... Seafood........... 4/99
Equador (5)..................... Low Acid Canned 4/99
Food.
Brazil (6)...................... Low Acid Canned 6/99 thru 7/99
Food.
Canada (9)...................... Low Acid Canned 8/99
Food.
Malaysia (1).................... Low Acid Canned 3/99 thru 7/99
Food.
Philippines (1)................. Low Acid Canned 8/99
Food.
Indonesia (1)................... Low Acid Canned 5/99 thru 6/99
Food.
India (1)....................... Low Acid Canned 6/99 thru 8/99
Food.
Vietnam (1)..................... Low Acid Canned 4/99
Food.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Commissioner Henney, you mention in your prepared
statement that FDA and the U.S. Customs Service have developed an
Imported Foods Action Plan to further enhance border surveillance.
Would you please tell us more about this surveillance effort?
Answer. On October 27, 1999, FDA and the U.S. Customs Service
submitted their joint report to the President that delineates action
steps to target ``bad actor'' importers who violate regulations for
importation of food into the United States, and work to subvert the
system by moving unsafe food into the U.S. markets. There are several
action areas for both FDA and U.S. Customs Service. The first of these
is preventing distribution of imported unsafe food by requiring secured
storage of products offered for entry by importers with a history of
distribution prior to release, mis-declaration or substitution of
product. The next is destroying imported food that poses a serious
public health threat. This is followed by developing a regulation that
would require the marking of shipping containers and/or papers of
imported food that is refused admission for safety reasons. Another
action item is proposing regulations to set standards for importers who
use private laboratories for the collection and analysis of samples of
imported food for the purpose of gaining entry into the United States.
The next is increasing the amount of the bond posted by importers for
imported foods when necessary to deter premature and illegal entry into
the United States. And the last action item is enhancing enforcement
against violations of U.S. laws related to the importation of foods,
including the imposition of civil monetary penalties.
We believe the full implementation of these action areas by both
FDA and the U.S. Customs Service will provide greatly enhanced border
surveillance of imported foods.
Question. What level of funding and FTEs are included in FDA budget
request for fiscal year 2001 for the Egg Safety Action Plan, as
compared to fiscal year 2000?
Answer. FDA's budget request for fiscal year 2000, included $30
million for the Food Safety Initiative. FDA did not specifically
identify the Egg Safety Action Plan within the amount requested for
FSI. However, egg safety is a part of the FSI. In fiscal year 2000, we
do have egg safety activities included in the Egg Safety Action Plan,
which was issued in December 1999. In particular, FDA held two egg
safety public meetings one in Columbus, Ohio on March 30 and the second
in Sacramento, California on April 6, 2000. Additionally, FDA is in the
process of developing the proposed nationwide consistent standards for
egg safety. Expenditures for these activities have been minimal.
The fiscal year 2001 FDA budget request includes $5 million and 17
FTE to begin implementation of the Egg Safety Action Plan. The funding
will allow FDA to initiate an accelerated research program; hire staff
to manage the egg safety program and train and evaluate federal, state,
and industry officials in implementation of the standards.
Additionally, FDA intends to propose nationwide consistent egg safety
standards in fiscal year 2000, finalize these standards in fiscal year
2001, and implement the standards through state contracts in fiscal
years 2002 through 2003. Adequate resources to fully implement this
plan are crucial to the ability of FDA to meet the goal of reducing, by
50 percent, the rate of Salmonella Enterditis illness associated with
eggs, by 2005.
Question. What success has PulseNet had in the past year in
pinpointing the source of food borne illness outbreaks?
Answer. PulseNet had a very successful year in rapidly identifying
common source clusters. This faster identification of the problem
permitted quicker interdiction and regulatory action, hence preventing
a significant number of additional cases. I would like to tell you
about some of the more noteworthy successes.
Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis--PFGE, patterns linked the
Salmonella Munchen isolates from orange juice and illnesses in multiple
states in 1999. PFGE by Washington State Health Department confirmed
the link after epidemiology detected the outbreak and the possible
association. This finding added to the realization that unpasteurized
juices pose a significant risk and spurred regulatory action in this
area.
Epidemiologic investigations linked several clusters of Salmonella
Munchen to a common seed source used to produce sprouts. Thereafter
PulseNet confirmed the epidemiology and helped to link other cases.
This was part of the evidence used to foster the new regulations on
testing sprouts
Public Health Laboratory Information System--PHILIS, and Salmonella
Outbreak Detection Algorithm--SODA, detected the 70 cases of Salmonella
Newport illness in 10 states. PulseNet was used to confirm the link.
This information and additional information obtained by CDC implicated
imported Mangoes as the source of the infection.
PulseNet supported the establishment of the connection between
liver pate and cases of Listeriosis in a number of northeastern states
while extricating other possible food items.
In ongoing cases, PFGE technology is being used to determine the
potential link between recalled product and human illness and death.
Epidemiologists have used PulseNet to confirm links, and tie in
other sporadic cases, that have been made with other standard
epidemiology approaches. It has been useful in providing supporting
evidence in identifying a common source of infection.
PulseNet linked Salmonella from ill persons in the USA with those
found in imported dog treats made from pig ears. This finding
highlighted the role that certain non-food items can play in foodborne
illness and provided direction for FDA's surveillance activities.
The linkage established by PulseNet between lettuce and
Escherichia. coli O157:H7 infections in elderly humans in two U.S.
States helped identify the contaminated batches and hence prevent
further illnesses.
Question. PulseNet is a collaborative project between CDC, FDA and
USDA. What portion of the total costs of PulseNet are borne by FDA?
What additional investments are required in PulseNet and what is FDA's
financial responsibility to this project? What amount of funding is
included in the fiscal year 2001 FDA budget request for PulseNet? How
does this compare with fiscal year 2000? How does this compare with the
total fiscal year 2001 cost of PulseNet?
Answer. Scientists from these agencies developed PulseNet
technology and application to identify and correlate pathogenic strains
using ``genetic fingerprints'' in food and clinical matrices which are
used to identify the common source of foodborne illness outbreaks.
Currently, CDC, FDA and USDA, working with 32 states, Los Angeles
County and New York City, operate the network. In fiscal year 2000, we
are expanding the network to 40 states. For the future, CDC is
exploring improved technology to identify ``genetic fingerprints''.
The PulseNet system and database is financed, managed and
maintained by CDC. CDC reports Pulsenet operation costs to be about $7
million. Of this $7 million, 70 percent is financed through federal
funds. The balance is supplied by State and Local governments. Since
its development in 1998, FDA's costs to support personnel, equipment
and training have been approximately $400,000. There is no specific
line item in FDA budget for PulseNet. However, we have included in the
fiscal year 2001 request an increase of $800,000 and 1 FTE for PulseNet
activities, under the Animal Drugs and Feeds portion of the Food Safety
Initiative. The activities that the increase supports includes
performing pulse field gel electrophoresis on animal isolates. The data
on animal isolates is provided to CDC for entry into the PulseNet
database to assist in the tracking of resistance in human and animal
isolates. We estimate FDA's fiscal year 2001 PulseNet related costs
approximately $300,000.
Question. What level of funding will FDA commit for fiscal year
2001 to complete the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring
System? What portion of the total cost of this system is being funded
by FDA?
Answer. In fiscal year 2001 FDA has requested an increase of $5.4
million to complete the expansion of the National Antimicrobial
Resistance Monitoring System--NARMS. FDA has funded approximately 90
percent of the total cost of NARMS.
Question: What funding is included in FDA fiscal year 2001 budget
request for the Center for Food Safety and Technology? How does this
compare with the funding provided for the Center in each of fiscal
years 1998, 1999, and 2000?
Answer. FDA is providing the National Center for Food Safety and
Technology with an increase of $1 million in fiscal year 2000 in FSI
funding to expand the collaborative research in food safety for a total
of $3 million. This includes the previous fiscal year 1998 and fiscal
year 1999 FSI base funding of $2 million. In fiscal year 2001 FDA
expects to continue to fund NCSFT at $3 million.
Question. What level of funding and full-time equivalent staff
years is included in the fiscal year 2001 request for Codex
Alimentarius? How does this compare with each of fiscal years 1999 and
2000?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget request includes $1.8 million
in support of Codex activities. This includes $1.7 million in salaries
and support for almost 15 FTE, and $100,000 for travel.
In fiscal year 2000, FDA plans to spend $1.6 million in support of
Codex activities. This includes $1.5 million in salaries and support
for almost 14 FTE and $100,000 for travel.
The total amount spent by FDA in fiscal year 1999 in support of
Codex activities was $1.4 million. This includes $1.3 million in
salaries and support for 12 FTE and $100,000 for travel.
Question. For fiscal year 2000, the Congress provided funding of
$250,000 for a cooperative research program related to molluscan
shellfish? What level of funding is included in the fiscal year 2001
budget request for this research program? Please provide a description
of the research being conducted through this program and achievements
to date.
Answer. The ISSC has conducted a number of projects, with funds
provided by FDA, focusing on Vibrios. In 1997, the ISSC funded a two-
year project at Louisiana State University to study possible markers
for virulent strains of Vibrio vulnificus. All of the capsule genes
evaluated were eliminated as possible markers. Also in 1997, the ISSC
funded a project at Texas A&M University to study the effects of rapid
ice chilling on levels of Vibrio vulnificus and on oyster mortality.
Rapid chilling of sacked shellstock was shown to significantly reduce
vulnificus levels, with no increase in oyster mortality. In 1998, the
ISSC funded a study conducted by the Pacific Coast Institute and the
University of Washington to determine if temperature can be used to
predict Vibrio parahaemolyticus levels in shellfish. A final report on
this study is being prepared. Also in 1998, the ISSC funded a
collaborative study with the ISSC, FDA, states, and NMFS, to gather
data on levels of Vibrios in raw shellfish at retail outlets, and to
create a regional and seasonal reference collection of Vibrio
vulnificus strains. The report on the retail study is being finalized
and the reference sample collection work is ongoing.
In addition, the ISSC has funded two assessments. The first,
conducted in 1997 and 1998, was to determine whether the time-to-
refrigeration controls adopted by the ISSC had been able to limit post-
harvest growth of Vibrio vulnificus. No significant impact on Vibrio
levels was discernable. The second assessment, funded in 1999, was an
analysis by Research Triangle Institute of the economic impact of
mandating post-harvest treatment of oysters. A final report is in
preparation.
In fiscal year 2000, ISSC is using funds from FDA to conduct
training for states in gene probe methodology used for monitoring
shellfish growing areas for pathogenic Vibrio parahaemolyticus, and for
collection by states of baseline data on total and pathogenic Vibrio
parahaemolyticus levels in shellfish. These data are necessary to
assist states in making decisions on growing area closures to prevent
illnesses.
In fiscal year 2001, FDA plans to continue funding cooperative
research programs related to molluscan shellfish at the fiscal year
2000 level of $250,000.
Question. Please provide the Committee with an update on FDA's
education program on the consumption of raw shellfish.
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, FDA provided $200,000 to the
interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference--ISSC, to educate consumers
on the risks to certain individuals associated with Vibrio vulnificus
and the consumption of raw molluscan shellfish. In April 1999, the ISSC
published a final report on their Vibrio vulnificus education campaign,
which was targeted towards high-risk consumers through their health
care providers. In partnership with five states, ISSC distributed over
16,000 fact sheets and almost 29,000 patient education kits. The ISSC
also surveyed the patients and health care providers who received the
information. Both groups reported that the materials had increased
their awareness of the risk of Vibrio vulnificus, and a majority of the
high-risk patients who completed the survey said that they intended to
stop eating raw shellfish.
In addition, FDA's Food Safety Initiative is focusing on educating
consumers about high-risk foods, including raw shellfish. In 1999 the
theme for National Food Safety Education Month was ``Cook It Safely,''
and the FSI Education Staff added instructions on the safe preparation
of seafood--including shellfish--to the 1999 National Food Safety
Education Month Consumer Education Planning Guide, a 43-page compendium
of ideas for food safety education activities, reproducible education
materials, and sample media materials prepared by FDA and USDA and
distributed to 35,000 health educators at the state and local levels.
In October 1999, a representative of the FSI Education Staff
participated in an ISSC Vibrio vulnificus Education Workshop concerning
means of targeting education programs to persons at high risk. As a
result, the FSI Education Staff has drafted a patient guide to food
safety that stresses the importance of avoidance of raw shellfish by
high-risk individuals. This patient guide, which is currently in
review, is a part of the ongoing initiative of the agency in
collaboration with American Medical Association, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, and the Department of Agriculture to improve
physician education on food safety, and will be distributed through
physicians' offices.
Question. In March of 1999, the FDA provided to the Subcommittee a
detailed Food Safety Initiatives Activities Plan. Please update that
plan to show the current fiscal year 2000 funding and FTE levels and
those proposed for fiscal year 2001 by Food Safety activity.
Answer. We are happy to provide a table that reflects total Food
Safety Initiative--FSI, funding by major food safety activity, and
another that reflects FSI funding by program. We are also providing by
June 30, 2000, under separate cover, a detailed breakout that includes
specific projects within each activity category. This will include
resource data in the millions and associated FTE.
[The information follows:]
TOTAL FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE FUNDING BY CATEGORY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2001 Fiscal year 2001
current est increase request
-----------------------------------------------------------
In In In
dollars FTE dollars FTE dollars FTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surveillance........................................ $11.0 51 $5.4 4 $16.3 55
Coordination........................................ 7.9 76 0.0 0 7.9 76
Inspections......................................... 119.1 1,126 17.0 116 136.1 1,242
Education........................................... 8.6 67 ........ ........ 8.6 67
Research & Risk Assessment.......................... 40.6 278 7.6 11 48.2 289
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 187.2 1,598 30.0 131 217.2 1,729
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. In fiscal year 1997, FDA was spending $109.3 million for
Food Safety initiatives. In the past year, FDA has received an
additional $79 million for its Food Safety initiatives. How has food
safety been improved as a result of the additional funding provided?
Answer. On March 17, CDC reported a 20 percent reduction in overall
foodborne illnesses associated with pathogens through their active
surveillance network--Foodnet. The Centers for Disease Control--CDC,
credited the federal, state and industry food safety partnership
activities, such as Fight Bac!; HACCP and Good Agriculture Practices as
major contributors to this public health improvement. CDC also
reiterated the need to continue to make similar strides in prevention,
improved food safety systems and outbreak response.
Additionally, the overall picture of trends for food safety
knowledge and practices that emerges from research is quite
encouraging. Between 1993 and 1998, the public's food safety practices,
both the consumption of risky foods and food handling behaviors in home
kitchens, show dramatic improvement. For example, for the population as
a whole, the incidence of eating pink hamburger is down 33 percent and
the incidence of eating raw oysters or clams is down 39 percent. The
safety of reported hand-washing and cutting board practices has also
improved markedly. The improvement is particularly strong for handling
meat or chicken, which improved 74 percent compared to a 27 percent
improvement for fish. Knowledge levels about microbial food pathogens
increased, along with rising perceptions of the possible risk of
getting foodborne illness.
That is not to say that there are no consumer education issues to
be addressed. There are obvious gaps in consumer knowledge, attitudes
and practices related to food safety. For example, although awareness
of salmonella has increased most consumers still do not handle eggs
very carefully and they are more likely to consume undercooked eggs or
foods containing raw eggs than any other risky food. Most consumes have
never heard of Listeria or Campylobacter, which are at least as
prevalent in the food supply as the more well known pathogens,
Salmonella or E. Coli.
The Food Safety Initiative has provided necessary resources for FDA
to undertake the enormous challenge of foodborne illness. Even more is
expected of this Agency as its responsibility encompasses a broader
array of regulated products and potential hazards in foods.
Question. Commissioner Henney, you indicate in your prepared
statement that the fiscal year 2001 budget proposed to accelerate the
process of generic drug review. How specifically will the process be
accelerated? Please give current review times as opposed to those that
will be achieved with the additional resources proposed.
Answer. With additional resources FDA expects to accelerate the
processing time for generic drug applications by improving its IT
infrastructure which will increase the number of electronic submissions
and reviews. An increase in the generic drug science base will also
improve our processing time. Funding is needed for research to support
the development of scientifically rigorous bioequivalence testing
methodologies for non-systemically absorbed drug products. The stronger
scientific support of these approvals, the more likely it will be that
we can successfully meet innovator challenges.
Approval times reflect both time with the Agency reviewing
applications as well as time with the sponsor or applicant responding
to deficiencies noted by FDA reviewers. The time spent in FDA is
measured by ``review cycles.'' A cycle starts when an application is
filed by FDA and ends when the Agency issues an ''action'' letter.
Generally, these letters communicate to the sponsor that their
application is approved or not. The majority of actions on an original
Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) are disapprovals. If not
approved, the sponsor or applicant is provided with the reasons why and
has an opportunity to submit information needed to address all of these
deficiencies. When this information is received, a new cycle begins;
often, the next action is another disapproval, due to inadequate
information in the submission. For fiscal year 1999, the average ANDA
took 2.4 review cycles to reach approval, a decrease from previous
years' number of cycles of 2.7 in fiscal year 1998 and 2.9 in fiscal
year 1997. The time to reach approval has been decreasing as well, with
the average time in fiscal year 1999 being 17.3 months, down from 18.7
months in 1998 and 19.6 months in 1997.
For fiscal year 1999, the Office of Generic Drugs does not expect
to meet the original goal of reviewing 60 percent of the original,
fileable applications in the statutory time frame. We expect to have
acted upon 40 percent of the original applications in fiscal year 1999.
Final performance data for the fiscal year 1999 cohort will not be
available until April of 2000. The goal for fiscal year 2000 is 45
percent. The additional funding request for fiscal year 2001 will help
us meet 50 percent within statutory timeframes.
For fiscal year 2000, the Committee approved the Administration's
request to provide an additional $28 million and 141 FTE staffing for
premarket application review. The Committee indicated in its report
that it was approving the following increases requested in the budget:
$11.4 million for foods (+51 FTEs); $2.4 million for human drugs (+13
FTEs); $4 million for biologics (+16 FTEs); $1.6 million for animal
drugs (+14 FTEs); $7 million for devices (+45 FTEs); and $1.6 million
for NCTR (+2 FTEs). This was on top of the following base
appropriations and staffing levels for premarket review, as follows:
$16.310 million and 134 FTEs for foods; $162.813 million and 1,261 FTEs
for human drugs; $57.263 million and 410 FTEs for biologics; $11.546
million and 115 FTEs for animal drugs; $48.5 million and 477 FTEs for
medical devices.
Question. Are these premarket application review funding and
staffing levels being achieved for fiscal year 2000? If not, please
indicate what specific funding and staffing levels are being changed
and explain why. Also, please provide the fiscal year 2001 comparable
funding and staffing levels.
Answer. FDA's total premarket review funding and staffing levels
are being achieved for fiscal year 2000. The base resources referenced
constitute those funds devoted solely to the review of an application.
However, the application review process is entirely dependent on
several activities that allow Agency to process and review an
application. The areas historically included in the premarket review
area include the review of an application, premarket research,
premarket outreach and coordination, premarket inspections. These
activities reinforce FDA's role of monitoring the industry and
providing the consumer with the best assurances possible that the
industry is meeting its responsibility. This strategy is designed to
ensure that safety is built into the product rather than to check for
safety after the product is on the market. Premarket review activities
implement this strategy by ensuring that the premarket evaluations of
drugs and medical devices are effective and timely, and the safety
reviews of food and drug components are conducted to determine if they
pose hazards in light of new scientific evidence and techniques. Agency
staff actively work with manufacturers to identify critical control
points and to develop good manufacturing practices. FDA is providing a
table depicting total premarket review activity estimates through
fiscal year 2001. The table provides data from fiscal year 1999 through
fiscal year 2001 including the fiscal year 2000 mark, the effects of
the recission, the PDUFA reallocation and the increases for fiscal year
2001. Additionally, the agency is providing definitions of each of the
pieces which make up premarket review.
[The information follows]
PREMARKET REVIEW
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1999 Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2001 Fiscal year 2001
actuals Inc. ------------------ recission PDUFA Inc. President's
------------------------------------ ------------------ reallocation ------------------ budget
Amount FTE ------------------- -----------------
Amount FTE Amouint FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOODS............................................................ $25,196 207 $11,400 51 $36,596 258 ($840) ...... $1,653 ...... $1,232 5 $38,641 263
HUMAN DRUGS...................................................... 212,902 1,768 27,277 23 240,179 1,791 (136) ...... (4,434) ...... 4,495 3 240,104 1,794
BIOLOGICS........................................................ 96,187 716 5,869 15 102,056 731 (124) ...... 1,322 ...... 8,778 30 112,032 761
ANIMAL DRUGS & FEEDS............................................. 18,522 178 500 115 19,022 293 (54) ...... 300 ...... 3,936 9 23,204 302
DEVICES.......................................................... 57,358 595 7,00 477 64,358 1,072 (164) ...... 212 ...... 7,708 14 72,849 1,086
NATIONAL CENTER FOR TOXICOLOGICAL RESEARCH....................... 14,815 97 1,60 ...... 16,415 97 (235) ...... ......... ...... 444 2 16,624 99
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREMARKET REVIEW ACTIVITIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headings Definition, examples
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premarket Review....................... All resources involved in the
premarket review process, i.e.
application review, notices,
petitions, sample collections,
sample analysis and method
validations, premarket
regulation writing and policy
decision making. Product
approval activities, e.g.,
ANDAs, colors, food additives.
Premarket Applied Research............. Laboratory research to support
premarket approval and
activities. Includes Methods
development for testing and
non-testing purposes, and
research to develop solutions
for specific regulatory
problems. Should include
regulatory research, but
exclude premarket methods
development which should be
included under premarket
review. Excludes routine
product testing, quality
control, mapping, collection
of general purpose statistics,
experimental production, and
training of scientific and
technical personnel. Includes
domestic and foreign standards
development and recognition
and international
harmonization-related research
activities.
Premarket Outreach/Coordination: Includes all consumer
Domestic. information, public affairs,
legislative affairs, policy,
meetings, conferences, media
interviews, small business
education and liaison
activities. Premarket-related
outreach activities includes
manufacturers assistance and
government, medical, and
consumer liaison efforts.
Premarket Outreach/Coordination: All foreign non-inspection
Foreign. trips such as ICH, MRA and
conferences. International
Harmonization activities.
Premarket-related outreach
activities includes
manufacturers assistance and
government, medical, and
consumer liaison efforts. This
category includes all foreign
travel that does not result in
a written inspection report.
Premarket Inspections: Domestic........ Physical inspection of
regulated establishments,
blood banks, manufacturers,
etc. Investigations by field,
non OCI personnel, trace
backs, trace forwards.
Includes domestic travel for
inspection purposes. Includes
sample collections.
Premarket Inspections: Foreign......... Physical inspections of foreign
establishments may include
public health and trade
issues. Includes foreign
travel for inspection
purposes. Should include all
foreign trips for which an
inspection report is written.
Trips for GAP/GMP equivalence
are contained in outreach.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Included in the $11.4 million increases provided by the
Congress for premarket application review for the foods program for
fiscal year 1999 is an additional $5,400,000 for the direct additive
process. Is this funding level being achieved? If not, why?
Answer. Yes, the additional $5.4 million for the direct food
additive petition review process has been targeted to that program in
the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Since passage of the
fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill, the Center has begun the process
of bringing on additional scientists as petition reviewers. To help
improve productivity during the time it takes to hire and thoroughly
train reviewers, we are also using some of the new resources to engage
contractors to assist with some petition review tasks. Our performance
in timeliness of petition review has been slowly improving in recent
years; with the new resources, we expect to make significant further
improvements in performance.
Question. For fiscal year 2000, funding of $6 million was provided
to FDA to fully implement the food contact substances program. Is this
funding being provided? If not, why? How much is included in the fiscal
year 2001 request for the food contact substances program, funding and
FTE as compared to fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Yes, the funding necessary to implement the food contact
substance premarket notification program has been allocated to that
program. Indeed, since the program became effective upon passage of the
fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill, more than four dozen pending
petitions for food contact substances have been converted to
notifications, and more than a half dozen new notifications have been
received. The first of these notifications became effective in early
March, 120 days after receipt. FDA expects to continue to fund this
program at the same level of $6 million in fiscal year 2001 as in
fiscal year 2000.
Question. For fiscal year 2000, the Committee indicated that at
least $0.2 million and 2 new FTE positions were to be made available
from the increase provided for animal drug premarket application review
for the Center for Veterinary Medicine to review aquaculture drug
submissions on a timely basis. What funding and staffing increase has
been allocated to the Center for fiscal year 2000 for this purpose and
what reductions will it yield in the amount of time required for the
Center to review aquaculture drug submissions?
Answer. In recent years, the Center for Veterinary Medicine--CVM,
has had a heavy backlog of Aquaculture submissions waiting for review.
Of the two positions specifically targeted for Aquaculture reviews in
fiscal year 2000, one has been filled and the other will be filled
shortly. The full effect of the new hires will not be felt until fiscal
year 2001 when the reviewers are fully trained. This fiscal year CVM
has made substantial progress in reducing the backlog of Aquaculture
submissions, with only fourteen out of the sixty-two Aquaculture
applications overdue at the current time. We intend to meet our goals
in Aquaculture in fiscal year 2001, which are based on an Aquaculture
Drug Team composed of four members, and submissions which fall within
currently projected levels in subsequent years.
Despite the challenges, definite progress is being made toward
Aquaculture drug approvals. Coalitions from the public and private
sectors are providing leveraging and are producing the needed
investigational data for individual drugs. CVM is a willing participant
in these partnerships and continues to look for new ways to support the
continued growth of an Aquaculture industry that produces safe and
healthy domestic and imported food products.
Question. Provide the 2001 staffing (FTE) and funding levels for
generic drug review, as compared with those in each of fiscal years
1998, 1999, and 2000.
Answer. I would be happy to provide information that reflects fully
supported FTE for the Generic Drugs Program, including resources for
both the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and the Office of
Regulatory Affairs. A fully supported FTE includes salaries, benefits,
and other support costs such as training, office space, travel,
equipment and supplies.
[The information follows:]
GENERIC DRUG APPROVAL PROCESS
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year FTE Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995.................................... 396 $42,643
1996.................................... 327 33,634
1997.................................... 351 34,183
1998.................................... 345 34,898
1999.................................... 362 36,049
2000 \1\................................ 372 37,873
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimate. Fiscal year 2000 data is not yet available that will allow
the Agency to project year end data, but the Agency expects to expend
an additional $1.824 million for the Office of Generic Drugs--the $1.9
million appropriation minus a $76,000 reduction taken as a result of
the fiscal year 2000 Budget Recission.
Question. Commissioner Henney, you indicate in your prepared
statement that ``FDA will use new funding to develop a focused effort
in the rapidly evolving field of food biotechnology''. What is planned
and what level of ``new'' funding is requested for fiscal year 2001, as
compared with fiscal year 2000, for this new effort?
Answer. For fiscal year 2001, the Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition--CFSAN, is requesting an additional $1 million to
enhance our research efforts and our scientific expertise in the area
of food biotechnology, with a particular focus on areas that will
directly support our regulatory programs. We are seeking both to
increase our in-house research and testing capabilities in this area,
as well as to leverage our resources with other institutions with
relevant expertise, such as the Joint Institute for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition--JIFSAN. The major focus of our efforts will be on
developing and improving techniques for assessing the safety of
bioengineered foods and feeds, for example, methods for predicting
allergenicity of proteins, and new alternatives to animal models for
determining safety. There is also a pressing need for a better
knowledge of factors that influence the perception of risks associated
with genetically engineered foods and feeds, and thus we intend to work
with other institutions with expertise in this area to develop methods
for the effective communication of risks associated with these
products. In fiscal year 2000, CFSAN expects to spend approximately
$700,000 on in the area of food biotechnology.
FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine--CVM, in fiscal year 2000
plans to spend approximately $120,000 in the area of food
biotechnology. The activities include evaluating safety of biotech
foods used in animal feeds and some outreach activities associated with
biotech foods used in animal feeds. We are finding that the number of
biotech related submissions is increasing.
In fiscal year 2001, the Center for Veterinary Medicine is
requesting an increase of $300,000 to be used for evaluating safety of
biotech foods used in animal feeds.
FDA's National Center for Toxicological Research has no funding in
fiscal year 2000 for biotechnology research. In collaboration with
CFSAN and CVM, in fiscal year 2001, NCTR is requesting $500,000 for
research related to food derived from genetically modified organisms.
clinical pharmacology program
Question. For each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 please
indicate the total funding level, by grantee, provided for the Clinical
Pharmacology Program.
Answer. I would be happy to provide the requested funding level by
grantee of the Clinical Pharmacology Program for fiscal years 1998,
1999 and 2000.
[The information follows:]
CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY GRANTS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
Grantee 1998 1999 2000 Totals
actuals actuals estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayo Foundation............................................. 60 ........... ........... 60
University of Illinois...................................... 225 369 ........... 594
Meharry Medical College..................................... ........... 131 ........... 131
Indiana University.......................................... ........... ........... 460 460
---------------------------------------------------
Totals................................................ 285 500 460 ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How much is included in the fiscal year 2001 budget
request for the Clinical Pharmacology Program?
Answer. FDA plans to expend $500,000 in fiscal year 2001 for
clinical pharmacology grants awarded competitively.
Question. Please provide a description of the Clinical Pharmacology
Program.
Answer. The Clinical Pharmacology Program provides financial
assistance to investigators who conduct research as part of their
clinical pharmacology training program. This program is funded through
cooperative agreements. I will be happy to provide a more specific
description of the Clinical Pharmacology Program for the record.
[The information follows:]
Specific goals important to the public health include: Advancing
scientific knowledge of mechanisms of in vitro/in vivo metabolism/drug
interactions; characterization of individual exposure-response to
drugs; and, the effect of age, gender, and race on drug disposition and
exposure response relationships.
Projects that fulfill any one or a combination of the following
specific objectives are considered for funding:
--Mechanistic understanding of drug-drug, drug-food, and drug-non-
prescription product interactions;
--Research to develop and evaluate biomarkers, and noninvasive
imaging as a way to assess safety and efficacy;
--Computer modeling and clinical trial simulations: evaluation of
clinical study designs to confirm drug safety and efficacy;
evaluation of techniques in gender, age, race, and liver/kidney
function-specific differences in drug response and drug
interactions;
--Development of electronic databases to capture key metabolism/drug
interaction data and provide a linkage to an expert system to
assist the New Drug Application (NDA) review; and
--Research to define the clinical pharmacology characteristics of
complex drug substances to assure proper use, define the
biopharmaceutic characteristics of the active ingredients, and
develop ways to establish equivalency of dosage forms to
establish standards.
WASTE-MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH CONSORTIUM
Question. For fiscal year 2000, $100,000 was provided for the
Waste-Management and Research Consortium, as proposed by the House.
What level of funding is included in the fiscal year 2001 budget
request for this consortium.
Answer. FDA expects to provide approximately $100,000 for the
Waste-Management and Research Consortium in fiscal year 2001.
Question. What is the purpose of the Waste-Management and Research
Consortium? What are its benefits to FDA and who are the participants
in this program?
Answer. The purpose of this program is to provide talented college
students with a chance to work on real world environmental or health
related problems. FDA presented a problem--``Find a way to detect
contaminated fresh produce quickly''--that the consortium posted on its
website. Five colleges responded to the challenge and are competing to
solve the problem. In April 2000, 10-12 judges drawn from a pool of
experts from FDA, the California State Department of Health, academia,
and an expert from Waste-Management in Manure Research will evaluate
the solutions presented. If a viable solution is found, FDA will begin
implementing the solution to inspect imported fresh fruit for
contaminants.
SEAFOOD EQUIVALENCY AGREEMENTS
Last year, FDA indicated that it is working to improve the safety
and sanitation of imported seafood by establishing equivalency
agreements to ensure that exporting countries have seafood inspection
systems equivalent to those of the U.S. Further, FDA indicated it was
in the process of evaluating submissions for equivalency agreements
from numerous countries and the European Union and had plans to visit
six countries, including Australia, Canada, Chile, Iceland, New
Zealand, and the European Union, before the end of the year.
Question. What is the status of FDA's efforts with regard to
seafood equivalency agreements?
Answer. Thirty-four countries have made at least initial requests
for equivalence determinations for seafood products. The determination
process involves at least six significant steps. In the first step, FDA
receives an initial inquiry from a country and, in response, provides a
package of materials designed to help the country prepare a side-by-
side comparison of regulatory systems. Many countries realize at this
point that they need to upgrade their systems and they essentially
allow their request for an equivalence determination to become dormant.
FDA regards the determination process for 26 of the 34 countries that
made initial inquiries to be in a dormant stage. The second step
involves a full ``paper'' comparison of all relevant aspects of a
country's food safety system. This is a rigorous and time-consuming
process involving major exchanges of material and lengthy analysis. The
third step includes one or more site visits to verify the findings of
the paper review.
If FDA makes a preliminary determination of equivalence based on
the paper review and on-site visits, the Agency will then progress to
the fourth step, publishing preliminary determination for comment in
the Federal Register. In the fifth step, a final determination is made
after review of any comments received. The development of an
equivalence agreement, if any, could then occur as the sixth and final
step.
The countries that have advanced the furthest in the process are
Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Norway, and Japan. All have had at
least first site visits and extensive, although not fully complete,
paper reviews. A second site visit is scheduled for Canada later this
year to review recent changes in the Canadian regulatory system. A
preliminary determination may be possible for Canada this year, as well
as preliminary determinations for some of the others, depending on
outcomes of their reviews.
Question. Did FDA complete the six country visits in 1999? If so,
what has been the results of those visits? If not, why?
Answer. In 1999, the Agency planned to visit Canada twice, Chile,
Japan, Iceland, and Thailand. FDA visited Canada once, for an audit of
Canadian regulatory laboratories, but delayed an inspection audit until
this year at the request of the Canadians. The site visit to Japan was
made, and may be sufficient to enable FDA to make a preliminary
determination about Japan without need for further information or
visits. The results are still being reviewed. The other site visits
were not conducted due to a number of outstanding questions related to
the paper review. FDA is waiting to receive answers to these questions
before performing the site visits.
Question. Has FDA established criteria for determining whether
another country's food safety system is equivalent to the U.S. system?
If not, why? Are these criteria specific to seafood?
Answer. In June 1997, FDA published draft equivalence criteria for
all foods regulated by FDA. The Agency obtained comment on the draft
criteria from consumer advocacy organizations, industry trade
associations, and foreign countries. FDA is in the process of
developing final equivalence criteria that take into account the
comments received. Completion of the equivalency criteria is a priority
for CFSAN in fiscal year 2000.
Question. Where will the FDA target overseas compliance visits this
year?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, FDA inspected seafood processing
plants for compliance with U.S. safety regulations in Ecuador, Taiwan,
Vietnam, and the Philippines. A trip to Indonesia was canceled due to
political unrest in that country. For fiscal year 2000, the Agency has
planned compliance inspections in Costa Rica--which has already been
completed, Thailand, China, Indonesia, Mexico, Panama, India, and South
Africa. Non-seafood overseas compliance visits will be targeted toward
manufacturers of low-acid canned foods, one of FDA's designated ``high
risk'' areas.
Question. What is the current level of resources for this effort?
Are additional resources needed?
Answer. FDA plans to spend approximately $4 million on all overseas
compliance visits in fiscal year 2000. Our fiscal year 2000 plan for
overseas compliance visits was drafted using available resource levels.
Additional resources would allow FDA to increase the number of
inspections.
TRANSFER OF VOLUNTARY SEAFOOD INSPECTION PROGRAM
Question. In a letter to me, the National Fisheries Institute has
indicated its opposition to transferring the Department of Commerce
Voluntary Seafood Inspection Program to the FDA. It feels it is
inappropriate to combine the Department of Commerce voluntary marketing
and quality assurance program with FDA's mandatory seafood HACCP
program. It indicates that the National Academy of Sciences and the
Department of Health and Human Services, in response to a 1992 General
Accounting Office report, have warned against combining regulatory food
safety programs with industry-funded marketing and promotional programs
like Commerce's voluntary inspection service. Do you agree that
combining these programs might undermine the objectivity and
credibility of FDA's seafood HACCP program? If not, why?
Answer. FDA believes that safeguards could be put in place to
eliminate a potential conflict of interest that could undermine the
objectivity and credibility of the current regulatory seafood HACCP
program. Transferring the program as a Performance Based Organization--
PBO, would help. A PBO is a quasi-public organization that is located
in a federal agency but operated like a business in that it is to be
financially self sustaining. While FDA would oversee the policy
direction of the PBO, no agency funds would be used to finance the
organization. While the legislation would authorize PBO inspectors to
perform regulatory inspections, FDA would adopt precautions to ensure
the objectivity and credibility of the inspection. For instance, FDA
could adopt a policy of utilizing PBO inspectors to perform regulatory
inspections only for seafood firms that are not also paying customers
of the PBO. In the end, FDA can always utilize its regulatory
inspection force as a check against the PBO inspection force to ensure
that the public health is protected.
Question. What benefits does the FDA believe would be obtained by
transferring the National Marine Fisheries Service voluntary seafood
inspection program to the FDA?
Answer. Transfer of the NMFS/SIP program to FDA will place all
Federal seafood inspection authorities within one Federal agency,
enabling increased efficiency and consistency of standards and
implementation of FDA seafood requirements. It would establish FDA as
the sole seafood agency with one HACCP standard, thereby promoting
efficiency, effectiveness, and consistency of seafood regulation. This
centralization will help both domestically and internationally. FDA
would be able to train the voluntary inspectors in the regulatory HACCP
standard along with the regulatory inspectors. Consequently, FDA may be
able to contract with the voluntary inspectors to perform certain
regulatory inspections or, in certain instances, to count a voluntary
inspection as a regulatory inspection.
Question. I understand the proposal would allow for voluntary
inspectors to be ``cross-deputized'' as mandatory HACCP inspectors. Is
this correct? Does the FDA need additional HACCP inspectors? If so, why
doesn't the Administration's budget request simply reflect a need to
hire additional HACCP inspectors?
Answer. The legislative proposal does allow FDA to utilize the PBO
inspectors to perform regulatory inspections under the Federal Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act. Such cross utilization could help to meet the
agency=s goal of annual HACCP inspections for seafood establishments.
ORPHAN DRUGS
Question. FDA policy already rewards an ``improved'' orphan drug by
allowing it on the market immediately alongside the pioneer orphan
drug, thus cutting short the pioneer's exclusivity. Is the grant of an
additional reward on top of that, i.e., seven years of exclusivity for
the improved drug, warranted? If so, why? What does it add to the
incentive to develop improved versions of orphan drugs?
Answer. Under the Orphan Drug Act, if a drug is designated for an
orphan indication and is approved for that indication, it will receive
seven years of exclusivity. During this seven-year period, the agency
will not approve or license the same drug from another sponsor.
However, the first sponsor's exclusivity is not a barrier to approval
of a product that is not the same drug. If a subsequent sponsor
demonstrates that its drug is for the same indication, and is not the
same drug as the drug with exclusivity, either because it is chemically
not the same, as defined in the orphan drug regulations or is
clinically superior the term you use is ``improved'', the second
product will be approved. If the second drug was designated for the
orphan indication, it will also receive orphan exclusivity. Hence, the
second drug is entitled to the full seven years of orphan exclusivity
because it is not the same drug as the product that already received
exclusivity. The statute does not limit the drug's eligible for
exclusivity on the basis of indication, chemistry, or clinical
behavior.
The current approach, in which improved forms of human growth
hormone for human growth hormone deficiency and interferon-beta for
multiple sclerosis have been granted exclusivity, provides substantial
incentive for research and investment.
Question. In the case of an ``improved'' orphan, why does FDA
insist on protecting the chemical entity itself for seven years instead
of limiting protection to the improvement, e.g., a convenient long-
acting formulation, or oral version that replaced an injection? FDA
seems to be making orphan drug exclusivity even broader than patent
protection. Is that necessary?
Answer. The Orphan Drug Act grants seven years of exclusivity to
certain approved drugs for orphan indications. The analysis of whether
approval of a new drug is blocked by orphan exclusivity turns on
whether the two drugs are the same. Generally, an applicant wishing to
establish that its product is not the same as one with orphan
exclusivity must demonstrate that its drug is either chemically
different, or clinically superior to the product with exclusivity. In
that case, the first product's exclusivity is not a bar to the approval
of the second product. If the subsequent product received an orphan
designation, it will be entitled to its own seven year period of orphan
exclusivity upon approval because it is not the same drug. That
exclusivity will protect the second drug against competition from any
drug that is chemically and clinically the same. The statute does not
limit the scope of orphan exclusivity for some drugs only to certain
characteristics of the drug.
It is not clear how this protection is broader than patent
protection. Patents run for a period of 20 years from date of
application and, with respect to those applicable to drug products, can
vary in coverage from very broad, such as those patents that cover a
drug substance, to narrow, such as patents that cover a specific dosing
regimen for a single indication or a single formulation.
Please note that, in the rare case when there are at least three
products that are chemically the same for the same orphan indication,
different factors may be at issue. If the orphan exclusivity for the
first of the products has expired, the new drug, if it is regulated
under section 505 of the act, can also obtain approval despite the
second product's exclusivity if it can demonstrate that it meets the
criteria in 505(j) of the act as a duplicate to the product whose
exclusivity has expired. The new drug would be approved because it is
not the same drug as the drug that still has orphan exclusivity, but it
would not receive its own exclusivity because the drug--albeit from a
different sponsor--has already be granted exclusivity, which has
expired.
Question. What is the rationale for allowing only drugs that
qualify for short cut approvals to enter into competition with an older
version of an orphan drug? Why prevent biologic drugs from competing,
as long as they do not attempt to copy the improvement that resulted in
approval of the subsequent product?
Answer. Any analysis of whether a drug can be approved in the face
of existing orphan drug exclusivity turns upon whether the drug is the
same chemically and clinically as the drug with exclusivity. When there
are only two drugs at issue, the sponsor of the second drug must
demonstrate that its product is chemically not the same as, or
clinically superior to the product with exclusivity in order to obtain
approval, and its own exclusivity. When there are two drugs that are
chemically the same, but each has been granted orphan exclusivity
because of a finding of clinical superiority for the more recently
approved product, the issues for approval of a third product are
somewhat different. Once the first product's exclusivity has expired,
the inquiry is still whether a proposed drug is the same as the drug
that still has orphan exclusivity. The new drug can show that it is
clinically superior to the drug that still has exclusivity or, in the
alternative, it can demonstrate that it is not the same as the drug
that still has exclusivity by showing it is the same as the drug whose
exclusivity has expired.
The ``short cut'' approval process you refer to is the abbreviated
new drug application program enacted by Congress in the Drug Price
Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 to provide a
streamlined means for approving generic drugs that can be expected to
be as safe and effective as the innovator product. FDA has determined
that if the sponsor of a new product can establish that its product
meets the approval criteria under section 505(j) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act for a duplicate to the product whose exclusivity
has expired, it will be approved because it is not the same as the drug
that still has orphan exclusivity. There are scientific and technical
barriers to demonstrating that two biological products from different
manufacturers can be expected to have the same safety and effectiveness
measures. There currently is no process for approving generic versions
of biological products regulated under section 351 of the Public Health
Service Act. The agency is reviewing its approach to orphan issues as
they apply to biological products.
Question. In enacting the Food and Drug Administration
Modernization Act in 1997, Congress specifically included a section
mandating greater harmonization between drug and biologic regulation
(noting that the provision was not intended as a mandate for
``generic'' biologics). How can FDA's orphan drug competition policy be
reconciled with this mandate?
Answer. Under FDAMA section 123(f), the agency continues to work to
minimize differences in the review and approval of products required to
have biologics licenses and products required to have approved new drug
applications. The issues raised in certain orphan exclusivity
situations relate to establishing whether two orphan products from
different sponsors can be expected to have the same safety and
effectiveness. The generic drug approval process at section 505(j) of
the act is an appropriate means for making this determination for drugs
approved under section 505 of the act. However, the composition and
characteristics of biologic products regulated under 351 of the Public
Health Service Act pose different scientific and technical challenges.
The agency currently does not have a means for making a determination
that two biological products from different sponsors can be expected to
have the same safety and effectiveness.
ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS
Question. Has a study been done to assess the overall quality of
dietary supplements that are being sold in the United States?
Answer. No, FDA has not conducted any systematic evaluation of the
overall quality of dietary supplements in the marketplace
Question. What kinds of scientific studies should be performed on
dietary supplement products that are on the shelf in order to assess
their quality?
Answer. FDA believes that scientific studies, to assess quality of
dietary supplements that are on the shelf, should verify that dietary
supplement products offered for sale contain the ingredients that are
stated on the label at the strength and purity claimed. Other quality
factors appropriate for study include those that assure the
dissolution, bioavailability, and shelf-life or stability of dietary
supplement products.
A ``market basket'' evaluation should be performed of one or more
botanical dietary supplements that are used extensively by U.S.
consumers. This evaluation would provide the information needed to
conduct effective exposure evaluations for future risk assessments, to
assess the distribution of formulations that are available
commercially, and to identify the areas were FDA should be focusing its
activities in botanicals in the future.
DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS
Question. Are you concerned about microbiological contamination of
dietary supplements?
Answer. Although we are not aware of specific microbiological risks
that are unique to dietary supplement ingredients or products, like
conventional foods, many dietary supplement ingredients are natural
products and we would expect that some natural products would be at
risk for contamination with microorganisms that may affect the quality
of the product or that may present disease risks.
Question. Are pesticides, herbicides and fungicides a potential
problem with dietary supplements?
Answer. Yes, like any food ingredient, dietary supplements may
become exposed to, and be contaminated with, various pesticides,
herbicides, and fungicides used during their growth, harvest,
production, or in the manufacturing facility. Additionally, cultivated
and wild-crafted herbs or botanicals may unintentionally come in
contact with pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides, via adjacent
treated fields.
Question. Is contamination with lead or other heavy metals from the
soil a potential health problem?
Answer. Yes, as with all plant-derived foods, plant-derived dietary
supplements may accumulate heavy metals that are present in the
environment. It is also possible for manufacturing equipment to
unintentionally contaminate food and dietary supplements with heavy
metals during processing. Whether a given heavy metal in a dietary
supplement presents a health risk to consumers depends on many factors,
including the amount present.
Question. Can or should some of these studies be conducted by
universities that have expertise and experience in that research area?
Answer. Yes, partnering with universities and other academic
institutions enables FDA to leverage both its financial and scientific
resources to the benefit of U.S. consumers. In the areas of methods
development and validation relative to issues of identity,
bioavailability, dissolution and disintegration, potency, shelf-life
stability, and quantification of contaminates, studies can be
conducted, not only by FDA, but also by universities, research
institutions, and other government agencies. To facilitate this
process, FDA is talking with United States Pharmacopoeia--USP, academic
institutions, and other interested parties to develop guidelines for
the needed research, and a process to facilitate communication and
coordination among research groups and users of these data.
Question. Are you aware of the research on the quality of dietary
supplements that is being done in the National Center for Natural
Products Research at the University of Mississippi?
Answer. During the past year, CFSAN has had increased interaction
with the National Center for Natural Products Research--or NCNPR, at
the University of Mississippi, including a site visit by several of our
top scientists. This increased interaction is due in part to FDA's
recognition of the NCNPR as center for excellence in the study of
botanicals used as dietary supplements. We have identified dietary
supplement research as a critical area for the future and are actively
pursuing ways to work closely with the University of Mississippi to
enhance the Agency's science-base. In the past, we have experienced
great benefit from a government/academic/industry consortium at the
National Center for Food Safety and Technology--or NCFST, at the
Illinois Institute of Technology. FDA considers participation in such
collaborative endeavors to be a vitally important resource in carrying
out our mission to ensure that U.S. consumers have confidence in the
safety of the drugs, foods, and dietary supplements that they purchase.
Question. What scientific information is needed to help FDA
determine if the dietary supplements on the market are safe?
Answer. The Dietary Supplement Strategy--a comprehensive Ten Year
Plan, outlines the scientific information that the agency believes is
needed to help FDA determine if the dietary supplements on the market
are safe. For safety purposes, FDA considers dietary supplements as
foods. We believe that scientific studies of the same quality and
scientific rigor as those required of novel food ingredients are
appropriate to dietary supplements. Data is needed to form a basis to
permit a science-based risk assessment of chronic and acute risks to
general, high-risk, and vulnerable populations.
A broad range of multidisciplinary research efforts is needed to
evaluate the safety of marketed products, including dietary
supplements. These efforts include the types of research needed to
ensure the quality of marketed products; methods for improving the use
of adverse event reports; basic toxicological profiles and dose
response curves for ingredients and finished products; potential for
adverse interactions among ingredients and identification of vulnerable
populations; other clinical studies and evaluations that reflect actual
use conditions; and consumer use patterns and interpretation of label
information.
Question. Does FDA fiscal year 2001 request include any funds for
to improve the quality of dietary supplements? If not, what funding
would be needed to initiate this research effort?
Answer. Within the Foods Premarket initiative, our fiscal year 2001
budget request includes an increase of $200,000 for FDA to develop
sound scientific data and expertise to support standards and guidance
in evaluating the safety of dietary supplements. Our goal is to respond
to 90 percent of notifications for dietary supplements containing new
ingredients within 75 days.
Additionally, in fiscal year 2001, as part of the Foods Postmarket
initiatives, FDA is requesting an increase of $2.5 million to enhance
the adverse event reporting system, or AERS, for dietary supplements.
With this increased funding, FDA would develop a system component to
collect data on drug-dietary supplement interactions to provide a
faster, more efficient way to evaluate adverse event reports, thus
shortening the time needed for any responsible actions. The potential
benefits for this enhancement are lives saved and improved public
safety.
We estimate that we would need approximately $1 million to $1.5
million for FDA to approach a collaborative research project with a
leading academic institution. This would allow FDA to initiate an
analytical survey of currently marketed dietary supplement products to
determine the level of health risk to the consumers of dietary
supplements.
Question. Has FDA conducted, or is it conducting, the studies
described in the report that are necessary to evaluate the
effectiveness of this technology?
Answer. FDA has conducted an extensive review of the available
information regarding the effectiveness of the technology. Based on
this extensive review we have come to understand the infancy of the
technology and how little is known about its potential for reducing
illegal sales. Our investigation included a search of published and
unpublished peer-reviewed scientific literature, searches of
computerized data bases, and extensive discussions with experts in
tobacco and alcohol control. We have interviewed all of the identified
manufacturers of the devices, and requested any studies they had done
prior to or after marketing their devices.
Unfortunately, only one controlled study of the efficacy of the
devices has been initiated and the results of that study will not be
available until late summer of this year. Even when the study results
are available, the applicability to sales of tobacco to minors will be
limited. The study has as its end-points reduction in deaths from
alcohol-related car crashes, a surrogate measure for alcohol use by
minors.
A definitive study of the utility of the devices to reduce sales of
tobacco to youth would need to test not only the reliability of the
machines, but how they are actually used in the retail setting. They
can be easily circumvented by the clerk. On the other hand, the
machines clearly can assist clerks in determining age eligibility once
an ID card has been requested and inspected by the clerk. It is also
possible that the mere presence of the machine within site of an under-
age customer might deter some youths from even attempting to purchase
tobacco. A well-controlled study of these effects is certainly
warranted before many merchants go to the considerable expense of
installing the devices.
REPORT ON AUTOMATED IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS
Dr. Henney, in its report on the Agriculture Appropriations, the
Committee directed FDA to evaluate the feasibility of equipping tobacco
retailers with technology to verify a tobacco purchaser's age through
the use of an automated verification system capable of ``reading'' the
magnetic strip or bar code on a driver's license in which the name and
age of the licensee is encoded. Among other things, the report is
intended to address the effects of reducing illegal tobacco sales to
minors and the effect on compliance through the use of automated
identification systems. The report accompanying the conference
agreement on the bill indicates that FDA is to submit this report
within 180 days of the date of the bill's enactment into law--that is,
by late April of this year.
Question. Does FDA plan to consult with states, such as New York,
that have enacted legislation promoting the use of this technology, or
with other states that are considering such legislation?
Answer. FDA has monitored New York's experience with the
legislation. The law in New York went into effect on September 1, 1999,
and was intended primarily to protect merchants from minors attempting
to buy liquor with falsified identification cards. The Agency has
learned that to date no merchants have attempted to use the application
of the machines as an affirmative defense. If the US Supreme Court
affirm's FDA's jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products, FDA plans to
continue to monitor the situation in New York, as well as consult with
states such as Ohio, Florida, and Massachusetts that are considering
the technology.
Question. Does FDA agree, as a general matter, that the federal
government should encourage the states to promote the use of technology
that can ensure that the identification presented by tobacco purchasers
has not been falsified, so as to help prevent underage purchases of
tobacco?
Answer. FDA has encouraged merchants to use the wide array of tools
and business practices available to them to reduce illegal sales and
has mentioned to interested retailers that scanners are one thing they
may want to consider. Unfortunately, our research has shown that these
devices possess a number of limitations. These limitations include
cost; ease with which they can be bypassed; privacy issues; and lack of
any credible, scientific evidence that the machines actually are
effective in reducing illegal sales. As a result, FDA believes that it
is important to not overstate the value that these products may provide
in reducing illegal sales to minors.
FDA COUNTER-BIOTERRORISM ACTIVITIES
Question. FDA performance plan indicates that in responding to
chemical and biological threats of bioterrorism, FDA's roles include
development of new vaccines and drugs, safeguards for the food supply,
and research for diagnosis and treatment of disease outbreaks. Would
you please give us an update on FDA's efforts in each of these areas,
the level of resources currently (i.e., fiscal year 2000) being devoted
to each, and how the additional funding requested for fiscal year 2001
will strengthen each of these efforts.
Answer. FDA participates on an interagency group formed by the
Department's Office of Emergency Preparedness--OEP, with the Department
of Defense, Veterans Administration, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention--CDC, and the National Institutes of Health--NIH to plan
for responses in the event of a bioterrorist attack. FDA's counter
bioterrorism initiative focuses on the priorities for creating and
maintaining a stockpile of pharmaceuticals and other materials, as well
as furthering research on detection, diagnosis, antibiotics,
therapeutics and vaccines. Under Emergency Support Function #8, FDA is
the lead DHHS agency for ensuring the safety of regulated foods, drugs,
biologics, and medical devices. This includes preventing and detecting
the importation of contaminated FDA regulated products. Therefore, FDA
has the responsibility for responding to any incident involving a FDA
regulated product.
In fiscal year 2000, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research, CBER, received $7.5 million one-time funding from the
Department's Bioterrorism Vaccine Program Fund to begin the process of
developing the necessary expertise and infrastructure to address
regulatory activities related to the countering bioterrorism
initiative. The one-time funding is being used to expedite the
development and licensure process for improved vaccines for anthrax and
smallpox, the associated immune globulin (VIG) products used to treat
and prevent serious vaccinia infections brought on by the smallpox
vaccine, and to continue on-going efforts to work with the interagency
group on a variety of bioterrorism issues. The fiscal year 2001 request
of $6.5 million for CBER is for the following proposed activities:
developing necessary expertise regarding the agents identified in the
President's Initiative; expanding efforts to test and produce DNA
vaccines against the lethal factor and edema factor of anthrax and
further develop an Ebola DNA vaccine; exploring the use of DNA vaccines
for smallpox and the use of RNA vaccines against some of the
encephalitis-causing alphaviruses; initiating or expanding programs on
pathogenesis and mechanisms of immunity for a variety of pathogens;
developing microarray technology to rapidly detect the presence of
nucleic acids, oligonucleotides, and RNA fragments; improving
monoclonal antibody therapies, new approaches in the use of
biotherapeutics, animal and human derived immune globulins in the
treatment of viral and bacterial diseases and in the area of emerging
infectious diseases.
The Center for Devices and Radiological Health has continued to
conduct bioterrorism-related activities in fiscal year 2000. We
estimate that the medical device program will expend approximately
$800,000 out of its base resources for bioterrorism activities in
fiscal year 2000. The Devices program will collaborate with the Center
for Disease Control--CDC, and the military to address domestic
preparedness and responsiveness to chemical and biological threat
agents, including review of reagents currently available to detect
toxic organisms and development of procedures that State and local
public health laboratories and the military will employ to diagnose
suspected exposures to these chemical and biological agents. FDA will
also review plans and protocol for a new diagnostic product sponsored
by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. In addition, FDA will
investigate the validity of products that claim to detect exposure to
biothreat agents. This is a new intended use for many in vitro
diagnostics (IVDs) that raises unique scientific and regulatory
questions. FDA needs to evaluate the effectiveness of these products
before they are commercially marketed with these claims. Finally, FDA
will establish an internal working group to develop a regulatory
strategy, to support CDC's chemical-bioterrorism preparedness
activities. This strategy is likely to require FDA to issue new
guidances clarifying agency review of IVDs and may also require new
rulemaking.
For the past several years, scientists in CDRH, have been
researching the development of DNA tools for diagnostic devices. This
technology has the potential to be very useful for the early
identification of biothreat agents, diagnosis of emerging infectious
diseases, possibly in the form of miniaturized diagnostic devices. Part
of the $800,000 requested for the device program bioterrorism
initiative in fiscal year 2001 will be used to revive this research and
take advantage of the scientific expertise CDRH has built in this area.
The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, CDER, is devoting
$400,000 in fiscal year 2000 toward activities contributing to the
development of a research agenda and the proposed rule to amend the new
drug and biological product regulations to identify the kind of
evidence needed to demonstrate efficacy of drug and biological products
used to prevent or treat the toxicity of chemical, biological, or
radiological substances. Activities also include working with academia
to draft fact sheets that can be used by physicians and first
responders so they can recognize the symptoms of bioterrorist agents
and respond adequately to an attack. The fiscal year 2001 request of
$1.2 million for CDER is for the following proposed activities:
premarket review of drug products for the treatment and prevention of
exposure to bioterrorism agents; review of the preclinical and clinical
data supporting the recommendations for treatment of bioterrorism
agents; evaluation of the need and availability of alternative agents
for the treatment of exposure to bioterrorism agents; and collaboration
with other agencies in the development of a research program to develop
and test therapeutic agents.
The Center for Veterinary Medicine, CVM, is devoting $100,000 in
fiscal year 2000 to activities including the participation in meetings
with representatives of government and non-government organizations to
consider the risk to animal agriculture, including the safety of
feedstuffs and food from food-producing animals and the development of
effective lines of communication among anti-bioterrorism units of
federal and State governments. The fiscal year 2001 request of $800,00
for CVM is for the following proposed activities: exploring ways to
prevent microorganism and toxic chemicals including pesticides from
entering animal feeds and food-producing animals; training senior State
personnel as first responders to an attack; developing effective lines
of communications among anti-bioterrorism units; and facilitating
timely reporting events, diagnoses, and identifying research needs.
The Center for Food Safety and Nutrition, CFSAN, is devoting
$300,000 in fiscal year 2000 toward a contract to develop the Food
Safety Strategic Plan for Chemical/Biological Terrorism; coordinate the
development of information on Chemical/Biological Terrorism from other
Federal Agencies, particularly the Department of Defense, DOD, and the
Department of Agriculture, USDA; develop research and Infrastructure
needs for FDA and associated food safety partners, including State and
local governments; facilitate leveraging of resources and technology
transfer from DOD and other government organizations to meet these
needs; and develop and implement the needs for contracts and grants for
food safety chemical/biological terrorism programs. The fiscal year
2001 request will help expand the agency's ability to safeguard the
food supply from potentially harmful and lethal biological agents. The
fiscal year 2001 request of $1.2 million for CFSAN is for the following
proposed activities: conducting research to develop rapid methods of
detection of biological agents, such as anthrax; working with other
governmental agencies and private sector organizations to developing
cooperative exchange information on surveillance activities and develop
crisis management procedures.
The proposed $1 million request for fiscal year 2001 activities for
the National Center for Toxicological Research include expanding the
mass spectrometry-based approaches to identify biomarkers of toxicity
associated with biological warfare agents; and developing novel
techniques to identify new bacteriological and chemical contaminants in
the food supply.
I will be happy to provide a table reflecting funding for the
bioterrorism initiative.
[The information follows:]
BIOTERRORISM FUNDING
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Program Fiscal year 2001 requested
2000 estimate increase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foods................................... 0.030 1.200
Human Drugs............................. 0.400 1.200
Biologics \1\........................... 7.500 6.500
Animal Drugs & Feed..................... 0.100 0.800
Devices & Radiological Health........... 0.800 0.800
NCTR.................................... 0.000 1.000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 8.830 11.500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes one-time funding from the DHHS Public Health and Social
Services Emergency Fund in fiscal year 2000.
Question. For fiscal year 2000, the Administration requested that
funding for FDA's counter-bioterrorism activities be made available
from the Department of Health and Human Services Public Health and
Social Services Emergency Fund. Why are funds for these activities now
being requested in FDA's budget? To what extent are FDA's activities in
this area dependent on those of other federal agencies, and FDA's
ability to use the funds it has requested dependent on funding being
received by other agencies?
Answer. The Administration requested $13.4 million in its fiscal
year 2000 budget request to support FDA's counter bioterrorism
activities. This request was made through the Public Health and Social
Services Emergency Fund to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor,
HHS, Education and Related Agencies as part of a consolidated request
for the Department of Health and Human Services. FDA's fiscal year 2000
counter bioterrorism request was not funded because FDA's appropriation
falls under jurisdiction of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Agriculture. FDA's programs do not fall within the jurisdiction of this
Subcommittee. In contrast, FDA's fiscal year 2001 request for
activities related to the countering bioterrorism initiative is being
made to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development and Related Agencies, which has jurisdiction over
appropriations for FDA programs. FDA's efforts in countering
bioterrorism are critical to success of the bioterrorism activities
government-wide.
In this, the third year of the Departmental anti-bioterrorism
initiative, DHHS is continuing to build on its ongoing initiatives and
also launch a number of new efforts that will further strengthen and
enhance its capacity to anticipate and respond to bioterrorism. For
fiscal year 2001, DHHS proposed an investment of $265 million for its
anti-bioterrorism initiative. To date, FDA has been contributing to
this initiative on a limited basis without receiving base
appropriations earmarked in this area.
FDA received $7.5 million one-time funding from the Department's
Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund for fiscal year 2000
to begin the process of developing the necessary expertise and
infrastructure to address regulatory activities related to the
countering bioterrorism initiative. This one-time funding cannot be
used by the Agency to develop staff experts or address the long list of
agents identified as bioterrorism threats.
FDA participates on an interagency group formed by the Department's
Office of Emergency Preparedness--OEP, with the Department of Defense,
Veterans Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention--CDC, and the National Institutes of Health--NIH to plan for
responses in the event of a bioterrorist attack. All of the agencies
are involved in the medical research and planning in the event of an
attack.
The Department of Health and Human Services' role is to meet the
Nation's public health and medical needs associated with terrorist
events. Preparing for the threat of bioterrorism requires government
funding to train the health-care workers, improve laboratory testing,
develop and produce vaccines and drugs, and expand hospitals' capacity
to deal with a large influx of sick people. FDA's countering
bioterrorism initiative focuses on the priorities for creating and
maintaining a stockpile of pharmaceuticals and other materials, and
furthering research on detection, diagnosis, antibiotics, therapeutics
and vaccines.
FDA has the responsibility of determining whether pharmaceutical
products produce the benefits they are supposed to without causing side
effects that would outweigh those benefits. This includes both
laboratory and non-laboratory investigation that addresses questions
either of immediate applicability to present-day regulatory problems,
questions that can be expected to arise in the near-term, and
fundamental studies in biomedical areas that can reasonably be expected
to have long-term effects on FDA regulatory responsibilities. Unlike
other DHHS agencies that are participants in the Department-wide anti-
bioterrorism initiative, FDA plays a critical but less visible role
with respect to its programs. Whether the issue is the development and
use of rapid diagnostics to quickly identify a suspected biological
agent or the capability to make available and administer large
quantities of a vaccine or drug to counter the effects of a bioweapon,
FDA is the linchpin that makes it possible for DOD, CDC, OEP, and
others to carry out such activities.
Other than research, FDA has the responsibility to review and make
approval decisions for drugs, therapeutics, vaccines, anti-toxins to be
administered to humans and every diagnostic tool that is to be used
clinically. In the event of bioterrorist attack, the public health goal
is to have available pharmaceuticals, the rapid diagnostics and the
vaccines that have already completed FDA review process for safety and
efficacy. Since this regulatory process is lengthy, complex and fraught
at times with the unforeseen, it is essential, in the interest of
national security and public health, that FDA engages in the process as
early as possible with sponsors and organizations that are developing
the therapeutics, vaccines and rapid diagnostics. This means that FDA
will assume a pro-active role and work with these organizations from
the very outset, starting with outlining the individual steps that must
be taken to obtain FDA approval, through pre-clinical toxicity testing,
the development of protocols for conducting the clinical trials, to the
review and analysis of the trial results, review of the proposed
manufacturing procedures, inspection of the manufacturing process to
assure compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices and post-marketing
surveillance of adverse events.
Question. Commissioner Henney, you indicate in your prepared
statement that specialized equipment and facilities are necessary and
needed in FDA to understand these agents and prevent, diagnose and
treat outbreaks. How much of the $11.5 million requested is for
specialized equipment and facilities?
Answer. The Agency estimates that approximately $3 million of the
requested $11.5 million request for the Countering Bioterrorism
Initiative is for specialized equipment and facilities.
Question. With respect to counter-bioterrorism, what is the total
amount of funding required for FDA to complete its vaccine development
and build an appropriate stockpile?
Answer. FDA's role is to develop tools to determine the safety and
effectiveess of vaccines that cannot be tested against live viruses.
Vaccine development is a joint effort between DOD, CDC, FDA, and the
private sector. The President's Countering Bioterrorism Initiative has
identified numerous agents as bioterrorism threats, including, anthrax,
smallpox, plague, botulinum, tularemia, brucellosis, Venezuelan equine
encephalomyelitis, ebola, and Q-fever, as well as others. FDA has begun
the process of developing the necessary expertise and infrastructure to
address regulatory activities for the President's initiative. The
fiscal year 2000 $7.5 million one-time funding is being used to
expedite the development and licensure process for improved vaccines
for anthrax and smallpox, and the associated immune globulin products
(VIG) used to treat and prevent serious vaccinia infections brought on
by the smallpox vaccine. These funds would be needed to develop, train
and adequately equip staff experts that can deal with the range of
agents that have been identified as part of the President's initiative.
FDA's countering bioterrorism initiative includes other priorities as
well for which funding is requested including safeguarding the food
supply, development of pharmaceuticals and furthering research on
agents with respect to detection, diagnosis, and treatment.
rent and related activities
Question. Provide a detailed breakdown of the Commercial Rent and
Related Services activities funded in each of fiscal years 1999 and
2000, as compared with the fiscal year 2001 request.
Answer. I am happy to provide the information detailing the
specific expenses included in the Other Rent and Related Activities for
fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 as compared to fiscal year 2001.
[The information follows:]
OTHER RENT AND RELATED ACTIVITIES, FISCAL YEAR 1999-FISCAL YEAR 2001
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fscal year
Subaccount 1999 actual 2000 estimate 2001 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Leases:
Dallas, TX.................................................. 545 352 ..............
Los Angeles, CA............................................. 1,561 1,606 1,648
Bethesda, MD (NLRC)......................................... 2,265 2,211 2,252
Lenexa, KS.................................................. 107 108 110
San Clemente, CA............................................ 250 250 250
Jersey City, NJ............................................. 386 388 395
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Commercial Leases.................................. 5,114 4,915 4,655
===============================================
FDA Owned:
MOD I/BRF................................................... 3,637 3,720 3,830
San Juan/WEAC............................................... 510 525 540
-----------------------------------------------
Total, FDA Owned.......................................... 4,147 4,245 4,370
===============================================
GSA Rent-Related................................................ 10,757 10,745 10,730
===============================================
GSA Buildings Delegated to FDA:
Atlanta..................................................... 680 700 725
FB-8........................................................ 3,000 3,120 3,250
MOD II...................................................... 1,920 2,000 2,075
Twinbrook Complex........................................... 236 130 50
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Building Delegation................................ 5,836 5,950 6,100
===============================================
Total, Other R&R.......................................... 25,854 25,855 25,855
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Rent and Rent-Related Activities.--FDA costs for Other Rent
and Rent-Related Activities are included in three subaccounts:
Commercial Rent & Related Services, GSA Rent-Related Services and GSA
Building Delegation Services.
Commercial Rent & Related Services are expenses that FDA pays
directly to non-Federal sources under the delegation of direct lease
and service authority. Services include rental of space and all
building operation services, i.e., utilities, janitorial, guard and
grounds maintenance, and operation and maintenance of heating,
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. FDA also pays similar
expenses for a small number of buildings owned by the agency.
GSA Rent-Related Services are expenses that FDA pays to GSA that
are over and above the standard level that GSA covers in its rent
costs. Services include security systems, guard services and HVAC
systems.
Building Delegation expenses are expenses that FDA pays to either
GSA or non-Federal sources to operate and maintain buildings delegated
to FDA by GSA for management of day-to-day operations. Services include
utilities, janitorial, guard and grounds maintenance and operation and
maintenance of HVAC systems.
Question. The fiscal year 2001 budget requests $13.5 million in
additional funding to improve statutory inspection coverage for human
drugs, biologics, animal drugs and medical devices. Please provide the
level of inspection effort in terms of frequency of inspection, level
of funding and FTEs, in each of these areas proposed to be achieved in
fiscal year 2001, as compared with each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
Answer. The Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act and FDAMA require
FDA to conduct inspections at specified intervals. To meet the
statutory requirement, FDA must inspect at least 50 percent of the
statutory human drugs, biologics, animal drugs and feed, and medical
device establishments annually. No food establishments are subject to
the 2-year statutory inspection requirement. In fiscal year 1999, FDA
inspected 26 percent of the domestic registered drug manufacturers,
compounders, or processors; 64 percent of statutory biologics firms; 25
percent of domestic registered animal drug and feed establishments; and
30 percent of domestic registered class II and III medical device
manufacturers, compounders or processors. In fiscal year 2000, we
project that the agency will conduct biennial inspections in 22 percent
of the statutory human drug establishments, 50 percent of the statutory
biologics establishments, 27 percent of the statutory animal drugs and
feed establishments, and 24 percent of the statutory medical device
establishments. In fiscal year 2001, without a funding increase and
given our need to absorb current services, we project FDA will be able
to conduct biennial inspections in 18 percent of the statutory human
drug establishments, 50 percent of the statutory biologics
establishments, 25 percent of the statutory animal drugs and feed
establishments, and 21 percent of the statutory medical device
establishments.
The current funding level for the field for domestic statutory
inspections is $44.31 million and the staffing level is 525 FTE. FDA is
seeking an increase for field inspectional activities of $13.5 million
and 89 FTE. With the funds requested in fiscal year 2001, we expect to
make modest improvements in statutory inspection coverage. The agency
can increase the percentage of statutory inspections to 28 percent for
the Human Drugs program, 28 percent for Medical Devices and 46 percent
of Animal Drugs and Feeds. We expect to meet and possibly exceed the
statutory inspection requirement in the Biologics program. In addition,
$1.7 million dollars of the increase will support sample collection and
sample laboratory testing in the Foods program for chemical
contaminants and pesticides and dietary supplements.
PERCENT OF FACILITIES INSPECTED \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal drugs Medical
Human drugs Biologics and feeds devices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1999................................ 26 64 25 30
Fiscal year 2000................................ 22 50 27 24
Fiscal year 2001 (proposed targets without 18 50 25 21
enhancement)...................................
Fiscal year 2001 (proposed targets with 28 +50 46 28
enhancement)...................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes only those with sstatutory inspection requirements.
I am happy to provide a table that shows the funding level and
staffing levels for the field statutory inspectional activities by
program area for fiscal years 1999, 2000 and 2001. Since the fiscal
year 2001 budget request includes a modest increase for inspectional
activities in the Foods program, the table also displays base and
fiscal year 2001 resources for the field inspectional activities
associated with chemical contaminants and pesticides and dietary
supplements for reference.
[The information follows:]
FDA FIELD INSPECTION RESOURCES, FISCAL YEARS 1999-2001
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1999 Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2001
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Staffing Staffing Staffing
Funding level Funding level Funding level
level (FTE) level (FTE) level (FTE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Drugs............................. $16,890 208 $16,374 194 $20,161 213
Biologics............................... 11,368 140 11,141 132 13,141 136
Animal Drugs & Feeds.................... 3,735 46 4,304 51 6,304 54
Medical Devices......................... 11,693 144 12,491 148 16,491 164
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Statutory Inspections Subtotal.... 43,686 538 44,310 525 56,097 567
=======================================================================
Foods \1\ \2\........................... 15,753 194 16,374 194 18,096 209
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total FDA......................... 59,439 732 60,684 719 74,193 776
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Foods program has no biennial inspection requirement. The Foods resources are included for reference.
The inspectional activities for the Foods program funded by the fiscal year 2001 increase are for sample
collection and laboratory testing for chemical contaminants and dietary supplements. In addition, $17 million
is being requested in fiscal year 2001 for inspection of high risk food establishments. These funds are
included under our Food Safety Initiative request.
\2\ Base estimate represents the total field resources (for both domestic and imports) for the Pesticide and
Chemical Contaminants program and resources for Dietary Supplements from the Food Composition Standards and
Labeling Project.
Question. Of the $13.5 million proposed, what amount of funding is
to enhance laboratory testing for pesticides, chemical contaminants and
dietary supplements?
Answer. Of the $13.5 million increase in funding proposed for
inspectional activities, $1.7 million are designated to enhance
laboratory testing for pesticides and chemical contaminants and for
dietary supplements. The increase requested includes resources needed
for sample collection and laboratory testing.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Question. The fiscal year 2001 budget requests $3 million for the
next phase of the plan for the Arkansas Regional Laboratory. What is
the ``next phase'' of this project and what work will be accomplished
with the $3 million requested?
Answer. The $3.0 million included in the fiscal year 2001 budget
request continues work on Phase III of the Arkansas Regional Laboratory
project. Phase III provides for the renovation of the existing Building
50 in its entirety and completes the common ORA/NCTR administrative and
support area. Specifically, the $3.0 million in the budget request will
be utilized to fund the majority of the mechanical and plumbing systems
infrastructure and related electrical system items necessary for the
operation of the installed mechanical systems.
Question. Please give us a status report on funding provided to
date for the Arkansas Regional Laboratory, including the work funded
and the status of that work.
Answer. I would be happy to provide for the record the status of
the Arkansas Regional Laboratory ARL.
[The information follows:]
Arkansas Regional Laboratory
The ARL facility project was initiated in fiscal year 1995 through
a $2.5 million appropriation for architectural and engineering design.
The firm Kling-Lindquist (KL), Philadelphia, PA, was selected. KL, in
consultation with FDA, developed an overall campus design comprising
both new and renovated space:
--(1) joint NCTR and ORA animal quarantine facility--renovation of
Building 62;
--(2) ORA's Arkansas Regional Laboratory--new facility;
--(3) Building 50 renovation--3 floors of office space; and,
--(4) common Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA)/National Center for
Toxicological Research (NCTR) administration and support area.
The fiscal year 1996 appropriation included $3.8 million for an
animal quarantine facility and preparation of joint NCTR/ORA laboratory
space.
Laboratory Building, Phases I & II, status
The estimated construction cost of the laboratory portion of the
project totals $37.95 million.
The fiscal year 1997 appropriation included $13.0 million for Phase
I construction of the ARL. Phase I began construction and provided the
ARL building, foundation, substructure, superstructure, exterior
enclosure, and roofing. Major building systems, such as fire
protection, HVAC, electrical and some site work, is included.
The construction of the ARL project was awarded on September 26,
1997, to Charles N. White Construction Company (White) of Clarksdale,
Mississippi. White was given notice to proceed on Phase I of the
project on October 1, 1997.
A ground breaking ceremony was held at NCTR on November 18, 1997.
The fiscal year 1998 appropriation included $14.55 million for
Phase II construction. Phase II continues the ARL project by completing
the building systems and providing some office and laboratory fit-out
in the ORA laboratory building.
On December 24, 1997, White was given notice to proceed on a
portion of the Phase II construction.
FDA received reprogramming authority for up to $10.4 million of
Buildings and Facilities funds for Phase II of the ARL project to
complete the office and laboratory fit-out for the laboratory building.
On February 27, 1998, White was given notice to proceed on the
remaining portion of Phase II to complete the office and laboratory
fit-out for the laboratory building.
A building dedication ceremony for Phases I & II, the laboratory
portion, was held on February 17, 2000.
Building 50 Renovation and Common Area, Phase III, status
Phase III provides the renovation of the existing Building 50 in
its entirety and completes the common ORA/NCTR administrative and
support area.
The fiscal year 1999 appropriation included $3.0 million to begin
construction of a portion of Phase III. This first portion included the
exterior demolition, exterior structural work, exterior masonry work,
and some roofing repairs.
On January 26, 1999, White was given notice to proceed on the first
portion of Phase III.
The fiscal year 2000 appropriation included another $3.0 million to
continue the construction of a portion of Phase III. This portion of
work includes exterior glass and glazing, roofing, an elevator, and
some of the site work and utilities.
On February 2, 2000, White was given notice to proceed on the next
portion of Phase III.
The total resources required to complete Phase III of the Arkansas
Regional Laboratory project are currently $9.5 million. With the $3.0
million requested in the fiscal year 2001 budget, the balance required
is $6.5 million in today's dollars. Because the work remaining to
complete Phase III is being divided into smaller increments, completed
over a longer duration, and the construction market continues to be
very active with increased competition for skilled labor, the costs of
the construction continues to escalate. Therefore, a total of
approximately $7.2 million in additional funding will be needed to
complete Phase III. We will evaluate the decision to request the
remaining amount as we determine our total requirements to meet our
mission critical responsibilities.
Question. What level of funding is required beyond the $3 million
requested for fiscal year 2001 to complete the plan for the Arkansas
Regional Laboratory?
Answer. The total resources required to complete Phase III of the
Arkansas Regional Laboratory project are currently $9.5 million. With
the $3.0 million requested in this budget, the balance required is $6.5
million in today's dollars. Because the work remaining to complete
Phase III is being divided into smaller increments, completed over a
longer duration, and the construction market continues to be very
active with increased competition for skilled labor, the costs of the
construction continues to escalate. Therefore, a total of approximately
$7.2 million in additional funding will be needed in fiscal year 2002
to complete Phase III. Prior to submitting our fiscal year 2002 budget
submission to DHHS, we will re-evaluate the total cost requirements for
this project and make the necessary adjustments to meet our mission
critical responsibilities.
Question. The budget requests $20 million to replace the Los
Angeles laboratory facility. What is the total cost of construction of
this project? Is there a lower-cost construction phase of this project?
Answer. The budget request of $20 million is for the first phase of
a two phase project that totals $43.0 million. It is conceivable that
the construction documents could be modified to define a ``site-
foundation'' only project that would entail a first phase cost of $10.5
million. However, this would delay the funding of a large portion of
the construction work for another year, resulting in the prolongation
of construction. As the construction market continuing to remain very
active and with increased competition for skilled labor, the cost of
construction may escalate.
Question. If funding is not provided to construct the Los Angeles
laboratory replacement facility, where will FDA perform the work now
performed by this laboratory?
Answer. Status quo is not an option, if funding is not provided the
LA lab will close. The lease for the current laboratory facility at
Pico Boulevard has been extended twice, and will expire at the end of
March 2000. A short-term extension is being negotiated, which will
allow adequate time for either new facility construction, or an orderly
closing of the Los Angeles laboratory and reassignment of staff and
workload. Closure will force the State of California, Department of
Health Services to find a new facility for their laboratory operation
that is co-located in the existing FDA lab. The closure of a large
field laboratory, particularly a large lab such as Los Angeles, on
relatively short notice, will cause significant disruption due to the
personnel impacts. Workload may be transferred to other existing labs,
but the requisite staff with the skills and experience would not be in
place for years. The other two laboratories in the Pacific Region,
located in Alameda, CA and Seattle, WA, are essentially at capacity for
people and space. It would be difficult for those labs to take on the
additional workload and staff, and would add to the time frames for
sample analysis. While space exists in the Arkansas Regional Lab, we
would anticipate a potentially lengthier delay in recruiting and
training new analytical staff to handle the increased workload since we
would expect only a small percentage of displaced analysts from Los
Angeles to transfer to the Arkansas facility. Other labs in the
Southwest Region, at Kansas City and Denver are also at capacity.
Furthermore, it would require additional time for shipping and
sequencing of additional samples from the LA Lab into other lab
operations. Longer delays would occur if the added workload puts the
receiving labs into a backlog situation. If FDA had to ship more
samples to other labs we would incur significant additional expenses in
addition to the time delays. Since a large number of samples are
perishable, they need expedited and environmentally controlled
shipments. For shipments of a relatively short distance, we are often
able to use the freight shipping services of bus companies, etc. For
longer distances, we would likely need to go to airfreight, which is
more expensive. We have no recent studies that would specifically
quantify projected cost increases for sample shipments. Of equal or
greater importance would be the resulting additional delays in
obtaining analytical results.
MEDICAL DEVICE REVIEW
Question. As you know, this Committee has taken a significant
interest in ensuring that medical device review times are improved and
last year we earmarked an additional $7 million to that end. In the
device portion of the budget justification, it indicates that $7.7
million will be devoted to device reviews. Can you please provide a
breakdown of how that money will be spent?
Answer. FDA is requesting an appropriated enhancement of $7.7
million and 14 FTE that will be spent in the medical device review
areas of genetic testing, reuse applications, and premarket science. On
genetic testing, $2.6 million, including 5 FTE, will build capacity and
develop strategies to respond to scientific breakthroughs in this area
and review genetic testing applications. For reuse applications, $2.8
million, including 5 FTE, will increase review activities and develop
standards for premarket review of devices that may pose significant
risk if reused. In premarket science, $2.3 million, including 4 FTE
will improve our scientific information base and evaluation methods to
facilitate patient access to breakthrough technologies; intensify
research and scientific collaborations that will enhance reviewer and
user understanding of new technologies; and work with stakeholders to
develop comprehensive test methods and performance requirements for
critical devices.
Question. I also note that the justification references a number of
times, the Center's performance goals. The agency indicates its
performance goals to be reviewing and completing 90 percent of PMA
first actions and 95 percent of 510(k) first actions within statutory
review times, 180 and 90 days respectively. Can you please tell me the
resources which are needed, both in terms of dollars and staffing
(FTEs), to accomplish these goals?
Answer. In its fiscal year 2001 performance plans for the Medical
Device program, FDA outlined a series of performance improvements that
expand on fiscal year 2000 accomplishments. In fiscal year 2000,
Congress appropriated an increase of $7 million to enhance medical
device reviews. Expanding on these efforts, the fiscal year 2001 budget
requests a total of $79.2 million and more than 640 FTE dedicated to
improving and expediting premarket review work for medical devices.
Without additional funding in fiscal year 2001, FDA will be severely
limited in its ability to meet the heightened performance targets which
are labor, as well as time intensive. These requested funds will allow
FDA to improve fiscal year 2001 performance workload for the device
program over fiscal year 2000 activity levels. For example, FDA would
increase the percentage of PMA first actions completed within 180 days,
and HDE first actions within 75 days, from a performance target of 85
percent in fiscal year 2000 to 90 percent in fiscal year 2001. Also, we
will increase the percentage of PMA supplement final actions within 180
days from a performance target of 85 percent in fiscal year 2000 to 90
percent in fiscal year 2001. In addition, we will increase the
percentage of 510(k) final actions completed within 90 days from a
performance target of 65 percent in fiscal year 2000 to 75 percent in
fiscal year 2001. The performance plan also indicates that in fiscal
year 1999 FDA completed over 99 percent of 510(k) first actions within
90 days. FDA plans to build on this accomplishment with the more
difficult task of increasing the percentage of 510(k) final actions
completed within 90 days.
Question. A first action on device applications within statutory
review times is laudable but even more important is final action. The
agency is only planning a final action on 90 percent of PMA supplements
within statutory review times and 75 percent of 510(k)s within
statutory review times. The performance goals don't even reference
objectives for PMA's, the most innovative products. Can you please
provide the Committee with a breakdown of the resources that are
needed, (both dollars and FTE) to get the job done in each of these
areas?
Answer. Calculating the cost required to meet all of FDA's medical
device review statutory obligations is a very difficult task given the
rapid growth in the volume and complexity of emerging medical devices.
In fiscal year 1999, FDA estimated that $26.7 million would be required
to review all statutory obligations as stated in FDAMA for medical
devices. Since that time, in fiscal year 2000, the Medical Device
program received a $7 million increase, and the fiscal year 2001
President's Budget requests an additional $5.4 million in appropriated
funds, as well as a $5.8 million user fee increase. If these spending
requests are approved, the medical device program still needs $8.5
million to fully meet all the medical device review statutory
requirements in FDAMA. Furthermore, FDA has subsequently identified
additional costs to the $8.5 million that include: $3 million for PMAs
and PMA supplements, $3 million for 510(k)s, and $2.5 million for
meetings with sponsors required by FDAMA throughout the medical device
review process, bringing the total revised cost to $17.0 million. This
cost estimate may require future adjustments to reflect any changes in
workload projections.
FDA is committed to increasing medical device review performance
and appreciates the support of the Congress in continuing to make
progress. FDA sets performance goals for both first actions and final
actions in the fiscal year 2001 Performance Plan. As I said earlier,
the fiscal year 2001 performance plan includes device review
performance goals, at the resource level requested in the President's
budget, of 90 percent of PMA original first actions within 180 days,
and HDE first actions within 75 days; 90 percent of PMA supplement
final actions within 180 days; and 75percent of 510(k) final actions
within 90 days.
The fiscal year 2001 performance plan also commits to improved
timeliness in meetings with sponsors, as required by FDAMA, throughout
the medical device review process. FDA is also committed to high
quality, interactive as well as timely device reviews. By statute and
regulation, we are required to take action--final action if possible or
interim action if necessary--on 510(k)s within 90 days; approve or
disapprove IDEs within 30 days; and take action again, final action if
possible or interim action if necessary--on PMAs and PMA supplements
within 180 days and HDEs within 75 days.
Question. Commissioner Henney you have made enhancing the Agency's
science base a priority in your administration. This is a laudable goal
and one that many of us would agree with given the increasing
complexity of products the agency must review. Can you provide us with
some sense of how that money will be used?
The budget justification, for instances, speaks to ``improving the
scientific information base'' and ``intensifying research and
scientific collaboration in breakthrough technologies,'' ``increas[ing]
scientific interactions with industry during review,'' and ``seeking
outside expertise to ensure that its regulatory decisions are based on
the latest scientific knowledge,'' etc. What do you mean? Are we
talking about enhancing the training of existing reviewers? Hiring
``bioengineers'' or others that are schooled in the latest
technological developments to review products? Increasing the agency's
bench science? Also, please explain what is meant by ``collaborative''.
Answer. I am planning to improve the scientific information base
via several avenues, a few of which you mentioned. We will work closely
with the outside scientific community to focus our energies on
breakthrough technologies and how best to regulate them. Consider the
area of new medical devices. During the past two years, more than 800
new high technology products have entered the market or are under
development. FDA will consult with the scientific community in
establishing appropriate standards for these new products. We will also
collaborate with internationally recognized research Centers to help
focus their efforts in emerging areas such as non-invasive surgical
techniques and computerized technologies. In other instances we are
strengthening our science base by building models that will predict
risk individuals will face in clinical trials for new products. These
models are constructed in partnership with scientists from other
government agencies and industry. Our science base is also strengthened
by maintaining close consultation with product sponsors in the early
stages of product development. These early dialogues are invaluable to
both FDA and industry, not only because they expedite the specific
products under development by sponsors, but also because they expand
the understanding of scientific breakthroughs that can be incorporated
into guidance provided to other product sponsors.
Our existing scientific reviewers need to continually update their
knowledge of scientific advances in order to intelligently regulate new
products. We need to strengthen the continuing active training programs
that are already in place within the Agency. The `Staff College'
concept has worked well at FDA, but should be augmented by external
expertise. A critical requirement for strengthening FDA science is the
recruitment of scientists with state-of-the-art skill sets. We must be
able to access the appropriate professionals to address the
breakthrough areas. For example, as a continually larger number of
products are spawned by the biotechnology revolution, we will have to
recruit more scientists in such disciplines as molecular biology.
In answer to your question on the meaning of ``collaborative,'' we
are defining that term as the creation of relationships and/or formal
agreements with others outside FDA that will enhance FDA's ability to
meet its public health mission. We intend to enter into collaborations
where the end results are greater for all concerned than could have
been realized if all parties were working independently. We have
demonstrated that these collaborative efforts in the science arena can
work very well. One illustration is the Product Quality Research
Institute. This Institute was created in 1999. It is a partnership
between FDA and several drug industry associations, designed to find
joint solutions to key issues associated with drug product quality. The
partnership works because it marshals the experience and energies of
many private sector, academic and government specialists and focuses it
on important drug quality issues. All parties gain in this
relationship. The patients receive higher quality products, and both
FDA and industry benefit by solving the tough problems, and thus
reducing both costs and regulatory burden.
Question. I understand that where more complex devices are eligible
for 3rd party review, the industry is taking advantage of the 3rd party
program. For instance, I understand the imaging sector of the device
industry is using the program in much greater numbers, than other
sectors. I also am aware that FDA has not yet met FDAMA's statutory
triggers for the pilot program to begin. Can you advise me of the steps
being taken to make this program work?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, we received 32 510(k)s with a third
party review, the most in any fiscal year since the program began. But
this is still a very small proportion, only 3 percent, of the
approximately 1,200 submissions received that were eligible for third
party review--including nearly 800 510(k)s for Class II moderate risk
devices. The list of 154 devices currently eligible for third-party
review includes a variety of diagnostic imaging devices, such as
diagnostic ultrasound systems, magnetic resonance imagers, nuclear
medicine tomography systems, and numerous types of x-ray systems and
related products. The list of eligible devices is available on FDA's
website at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/dsma/3258.html. In fiscal year 1999,
diagnostic ultrasound devices accounted for 15 of the 32, or 47
percent, of the 510(k)s received by FDA with a third-party review, but
only two third-party 510(k)s were received for all other types of
diagnostic imaging devices. Thus, while one sector of the diagnostic
imaging industry made significant use of the third party approach, most
sectors did not. Even in the diagnostic ultrasound sector,
approximately three-fourths of all 510(k)s processed by FDA in fiscal
year 1999 did not have a third-party review.
While you are correct that the third party program has not met the
two FDAMA triggers per section 523(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, FFD&C Act it is important to note that the statutory
triggers do not impact the starting date of the third party program.
Instead, they are triggers for beginning the time period that would
result in sunset of the Accredited Persons provisions. FDA has already
begun FDAMA's third party program. On November 21, 1998, the agency
began accepting reviews of premarket notifications--510(k)s--from
qualified third party organizations under the Accredited Persons
provisions. Before that date, the agency took numerous steps that were
necessary for successful implementation of the program, including
publishing the criteria for accreditation of third parties, as required
by the FFD&C Act; issuing draft and final procedural guidance for the
program; issuing a list of devices eligible for Accredited Person
review; developing product-specific guidance and recognizing national
or international consensus standards to assist third parties in
conducting consistent and thorough 510(k) reviews; performing
accreditation of prospective third parties; and conducting training of
Accredited Persons.
One of the statutory triggers--section 523(c)(2)--that would begin
the time period leading to sunset of the Accredited Persons provisions
occurs when the Agency notifies Congress that it has processed a third-
party review for at least 35 percent of the potentially eligible
devices. Due to low industry use of the third-party approach, together
with the large number of potentially eligible devices, it appears
unlikely that this trigger will be met. The other trigger--section
523(c)(1)--occurs when the agency notifies Congress that at least two
third parties are accredited to review at least 60 percent of 510(k)
submissions. Currently, 154 devices are eligible for third-party
review--including many significant devices such as diagnostic
ultrasound systems, magnetic resonance imagers, endoscopes, and cardiac
monitors--and at least 2 of the 13 Accredited Personsare available to
review each of the devices. In fiscal year 1999, the Agency received
more than 1,200 510(k) submissions for the 154 devices, representing
nearly 50 percent of all 510(k)s that are potentially eligible for
third-party review based on the criteria in section 523(a)(3) of the
FFD&C Act.
FDA is working on a significant expansion of the third-party
program. The agency intends to pilot test an expansion of the program
that will allow all devices eligible under the terms of the statutory
provision to be candidates for third party review. CDRH is planning to
issue a draft guidance document in April that will explain the agency's
expanded program and provide an opportunity for comment from all
interested parties. We are hopeful that expansion of the eligible
device list will stimulate greater industry interest in the third party
approach, and many trade associations have informed us that they will
encourage their members to take advantage of these third party
opportunities. In addition, we are optimistic that the additive user
fee proposal included in the Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget
proposal, if implemented, will jump-start the third party program. The
revenue from these fees would be used to provide information about the
availability of third-party reviews and to subsidize the cost of these
reviews.
I understand that there may be a serious backlog as well as long
review times for medical devices which get reviewed by the Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Review.
Question. What is the backlog for devices reviewed by the biologics
center?
Answer. Thank you for the opportunity to respond and provide
information on the improvements made in device review performance by
the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, CBER, since the
enactment of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of
1997. There are currently 4 overdue PMAs or 510(k)s at CBER. Because we
define overdue reviews as reviews that did not meet the statutory
deadline for first review action, once FDA misses a statutory deadline
for a submission, the submission will remain on the overdue list until
it is either approved, cleared, withdrawn or denied. Subsequent review
cycles will not have an effect on an application's overdue status until
the product is approved, cleared, withdrawn, or denied. Thus far,
during fiscal year 2000 there have been no additional overdue
submissions. Significant improvements in review of all types of devices
has occurred during the past 2 years. These improvements have come
about as a result of a concerted effort by CBER known as the Device
Action Plan. One example of the improvement is the review of 510(k)s at
CBER. During the past two years on-time review of all device
submissions has improved dramatically. For example, in fiscal year
1998, only 22 percent of 510(k)s were reviewed on time, that is within
90 days, for the first response either approving or denying substantial
equivalence. On-time review improved to 64 percent in fiscal year 1999,
and to 100 percent on time thus far in fiscal year 2000.
CBER reviews devices that are used to ensure the safety of the
blood supply, to prepare certain blood components, and tests that are
used in the diagnosis of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). These
devices involve complex issues and are critical to the public health.
Devices reviewed by CBER include tests used to screen the blood supply
for HIV, Hepatitis B virus, and Hepatitis C virus; diagnostic tests for
HIV; blood-bank software; devices used to collect blood components; and
other devices used to ensure blood safety. Approximately 12 million
units of donated blood and 12 million units of donated plasma are
collected each year. FDA considers the review of devices used to ensure
blood safety one of its most important public health responsibilities.
As mentioned above, CBER initiated the Device Action Plan in 1999.
Because most of the devices reviewed by CBER are reviewed within the
Office of Blood Research and Review, OBRR has reengineered the review
process to improve the effectiveness and timeliness of reviews
including the following: (1) implementation of the Regulatory Project
Management concept to set the target dates for the review of an
applications; (2) integration of the scientific and regulatory reviews
within a division; (3) delegation of the resolution of the scientific
issues down the management chain; (4) issuance of the Office Standard
of Operation Policy (OSOP) to achieve the consistency and timeliness of
the review; and, (5) implementation of the monitoring process to ensure
the achievement of the Office Streamline Review Process.
Question. What are the average review times for 510(k) and PMA
devices reviewed by the biologics center?
Answer. As noted above, review of all devices has greatly improved
over the past 2 years. For fiscal year 1999, the average 510(k)s review
times were 77 days per review cycle. This figure does not include time
that the manufacturer may have taken to respond to deficiencies
identified by FDA. If the submission was found to be not substantially
equivalent, and the manufacturer needs to submit additional information
for product approval then a second or even a third review cycle may be
necessary. In fiscal year 1998, the average PMA review time was 132
days per review cycle. Again, this does not include time a manufacturer
may have needed to respond to FDA identified deficiencies. The average
review time for PMAs for fiscal year 1999 are not yet available because
submissions are still undergoing additional cycles of review before
approval, denial or withdrawal.
Question. What resources are needed to get the job done?
Answer. The backlog of overdue medical device applications in CBER
has been dramatically reduced. This accomplishment was achieved as the
result of redirection of other mission-related, non-user-fee
activities. In order to maintain the same level of response to device
applications, as well as address other areas, the Office of Blood
Research and Review, OBRR, requires additional resources. Specifically
these needs are to meet predicted review workload; to address emerging
infectious blood-borne diseases; and to deal with new technologies such
as nucleic acid testing for infectious diseases, novel blood collection
devices, and single-unit blood and plasma inactivation devices. Recent
analyses of CBER workload predicts that there will be a continued
upward trend in all types of device submissions to CBER, in particular
to OBRR. The analyses were based on the trend in submissions over the
past few years and on the degree of employee effort needed to review
each type of submission. We have made significant progress on
eliminating backlogged submissions and decreasing the review time on
each application type. However, this progress will be difficult to
maintain and has been accomplished at the cost of other components of
our mission. Additional resources are needed to continue to provide the
same speed and quality review in the blood program. The Office of Blood
Research and Review estimates that 20 FTE and $2.5 million are needed
to sustain the reduction of the blood medical device backlog, and
perform their other regulatory responsibilities. This estimate does not
include resources needed to permit scientific professional development
and research.
There are also additional needs related to special initiatives
which include: expansion of reporting systems for transfusion-related
errors, accidents and adverse reactions requiring approximately $1
million including at least two FTE; completion of rulemaking, guidance,
including monographs, and supply improvements under the Blood Action
Plan at a cost of about $1 million per year for 3-5 years; and research
to permit science-based revision of the donor questionnaire costing
about $3 million.
HEALTHY PEOPLE 2010
I have a few questions about the Department of Health and Human
Services' target for reducing underage smokeless tobacco use and the
method for measuring whether the target is met.
For purposes of Healthy People 2000, the Department established a
1988 baseline of 6.6 percent for past-month use of smokeless tobacco by
12-17 year-old males and set a goal of reducing smokeless tobacco use
among 12-17 year-old males to 4 percent by 2000. The Department used
the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse to measure progress toward
this goal. According to the National Household Survey, the 4 percent
goal was not only reached but surpassed in 1993 and 1994.
In 1996, the Department indicated that it had changed its survey
methodology, and that one effect of the change was to estimate 12-17
year-old male smokeless tobacco use at 5.1 percent in 1995--a much
higher number than the 3.5 percent reported for 1994. Even with the new
methodology and the higher 1995 estimate the department's 4 percent
goal was reached and surpassed in 1996, 1997, and 1998. A past-month
use rate of 2.1 percent was reported for 1998 for 12-17 year-old males.
Healthy People 2010 establishes a new goal of reducing smokeless
tobacco use among all 9th through 12th graders to 1 percent by 2010,
but it will use yet another methodology--the Youth Risk Behavior
Survey--to measure progress toward this goal.
In the draft Healthy People 2010 Objectives issued for public
comment however, the Department stated that ``continuity'' and
``comparability'' were important and that, whenever possible, Healthy
People 2010 should use the performance measures already used in Healthy
People 2000.
Question. Could you explain why the department has again revised
its methodology for measuring underage smokeless tobacco use, for the
second time in six years?
Answer. Continuity and comparability in the source of information
from one year to the next are important factors in monitoring trends in
tobacco use in the population. The Department supports three surveys to
determine how adolescents use tobacco products--the National Household
Survey on Drug Abuse, NHSDA; Monitoring the Future, MTF; and the Youth
Risk Behavior Survey, YRBS. Each of these surveys takes a somewhat
different approach. Monitoring the Future surveys youth in schools, the
YRBS also focuses on school youth; and the NHSDA interviews a large
sample of persons over 12 years of age. Because these surveys are
somewhat different in how the samples are drawn, how interviews are
conducted, and the general structure of the questionnaires, they
produce somewhat different results with respect to absolute levels of
use. The different approaches contribute to resolving the problem of
what the level of true use may be. What is important is that the three
surveys historically describe essentially similar trends.
Careful consideration was given to all available data sources for
monitoring Healthy People 2000 and 2010 objectives. The tobacco working
group, comprised of scientists and health professionals, suggested
using YRBS because state data is available for both baseline and trend
analysis, making it possible for states to accurately measure progress
on the objectives.
Question. How can the department accurately gauge the actual trend
of smokeless tobacco use over time when it changes its measurement
tools every few years?
Answer. The Department does not change the tools it uses for
measurement every few years. The YRBS, the NSDA, and the MTF have been
used for more than a decade to measure changes in substance use and
abuse. Each survey provides estimates of prevalence and trends over
time. Each of the surveys can be used to provide a general picture of
the trends in youth use of smokeless tobacco. Trend data are available
in the current Healthy People 2010 data source, the Youth Risk Behavior
Survey, which has collected information about smokeless tobacco use
since 1993.
Question. Will the Department again change its measurement tools if
the Healthy People 2010 target is achieved ahead of schedule? Is there
some concern that we'll stop making vigorous efforts to reduce underage
smokeless tobacco use if estimated use levels are too low?
Answer. The Department has maintained the NHSDA for almost 30
years, the MTF for 25 years, and the YRBS for almost a decade. There is
no intention to modify these surveys because of a specific change in
the trend. Indeed, in order to describe trends the surveys need to be
modified as little as possible. In addition, the department has no
intention to change the Healthy People data source during the decade.
As long as any youth are using tobacco, a cancer-causing substance, the
department will maintain vigorous prevention, cessation, and research
efforts in this area.
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. The first strategic goal focuses on premarket activities
and the second on postmarket activities. Both the fiscal year 2001
budget request and performance plan are organized by these strategic
goals. The fiscal year 2001 budget requests the resources necessary for
FDA's core activities of premarket review and postmarket surveillance
by program. The performance plan also organizes the agency's
performance goals by these two strategic goals and links the
performance goals to the agency's programs as presented in the budget
request.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities?
What difficulties, if any, did you encounter, and what lessons did
you learn?
Answer. The process used to link performance goals to budget
activities involved program managers, planners and budget
representatives from each major program area, their field counterparts,
and analysts in the Office of Planning and the Office of Financial
Management in the Office of the Commissioner. It involved several
steps, the most significant of which was the use of strategy teams
composed of representatives of all agency programs and led by senior
agency managers. These teams brought agency decision-makers together to
look carefully at the difference between current Agency performance and
specific performance targets established by statute, such as FDAMA. In
this way we could focus on resources needed to close the gap between
actual and intended performance and on the strategies needed such as
leveraging and improving our science base to meet performance targets.
Performance goals were developed to reflect the level of performance
expected based on the budget request.
We did not encounter many difficulties in linking performance goals
to budget activities in terms of developing goals related to the budget
activities. The difficulties encountered were in precisely linking
specific resources to specific performance goals and in the
presentation of the budget and related performance goals in the
performance plan. We learned we would need more precise performance
data and cost accounting data to establish specific linkages between
resources and specific goals. This data, would be costly and difficult
to collect especially if we had to collect performance related data
from the public, industry, and the health care community. The
presentation and integration of the budget and the performance plan are
a continuing challenge and a continuing learning process. We will
continue to look for meaningful ways to relate agency outcomes with
resource allocation decisions.
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget?
Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. Yes, the agency's performance plan links performance
measures (goals) to its budget by its overall premarket and postmarket
strategic goals and by program. The agency's budget has one major
appropriation account which covers its programs. Each program within
the account has corresponding performance goals in the performance
plan.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Do you plan to propose any changes to your account structure for
fiscal year 2001?
Will you propose any changes to the program activities described
under that account structure?
Answer. The agency's performance planning structure is the same as
the account and activity structure in its budget justification. The
budget and the performance plan are both organized by the agency's two
overall strategic goals for premarket and postmarket activities and by
programs. We currently plan no changes to the agency's account
structure nor to the program activities described under that account
structure in fiscal year 2001.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
How did the agency balance the cost of data collection and
verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
Does your plan include performance measures for which reliable data
are not likely to be available in time for your first performance
report in March 2000?
Answer. Performance measures were selected by the agency leadership
based on their direct support of the agency's long range, strategic
goals, and also because they supported the strategies outlined during
the planning phase of the fiscal year 2001 budget. Goals contained in
the Performance Plan were determined to be the most critical indicators
for successful achievement of strategic goals and strategies. The
specific performance target levels for fiscal year 2001 were also
influenced by several factors, including: the urgency of the health or
safety risk addressed by the goal, the proposed level of funding,
environmental factors such as size and complexity of workload, and
actual performance results for fiscal year 1999.
The agency balanced the cost versus the need for performance data
based on the degree of health and safety risks involved and on the
availability of existing data. The greater the potential risks, the
greater is the need for performance data to tell us how we are
addressing that risk. Where mature data systems are already in place,
costs are well justified by the quality of performance data we receive.
PDUFA is a good example of this type of program. In some new areas in
which the agency is re-inventing its review processes to expedite the
marketing of safe products, such as the premarket notification program
for food additives, we are obliged to re-engineer our data systems, and
collect data to support our regulatory activities. Improvements to the
existing data collection systems that support our regulatory efforts
require an initial front-end investment that will yield benefits
relatively soon within one or two years. The benefits resulting from
these investments in terms of the public health impact and ultimate
savings to the industry will exceed the cost of the improvements. For
some areas, such as medical errors, a large front-end investment is
required. But we believe that investment in data collection is well
worth the cost, even though benefits will only be fully realized after
five or more years. This is because a comprehensive medical error
surveillance, assessment and correction system is a primary means for
improving health and safety outcome.
Yes, FDA's fiscal year 2001 Performance Plan includes thirteen 1999
performance goals and measures for which data were not available for
inclusion in the fiscal year 1999 Performance Report. These goals
account for 20 percent of the 65 performance goal commitments for
fiscal year 1999.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
2000 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results?
For each key annual goal, indicate whether you consider it to be an
output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measure (``how well'').
State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and objective
from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is linked.
Answer. I would be happy to provide that for the record.
[The information follows:]
FISCAL YEAR 200 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN KEY GOALS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000
Program performance goal Output/outcome Strategic goal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foods Complete First Action Output................. Provide consumers
on 40 percent of food quicker access to new
and color additive food ingredients and
petitions within 360 dietary supplements,
days of receipt. while assuring safety
and effectiveness.
Foods................................ Achieve adoption of Outcome................ Reduce the health risks
Food Code by at least associated with food
18 states. and cosmetic products
by preventing human
exposure to hazards,
monitoring product
quality and correcting
problems that are
identified.
Foods................................ Inspect at least 90 Output................. Reduce the health risks
percent of high risk associated with food
domestic food and cosmetic products
establishments. by preventing human
exposure to hazards,
monitoring product
quality and correcting
problems that are
identified.
Foods................................ Conduct 60,600 import Output................. Reduce the health risks
exams of high risk associated with food
food products. and cosmetic products
by preventing human
exposure to hazards,
monitoring product
quality and correcting
problems that are
identified.
Drugs................................ Review and act on 90 Output................. Reduce human suffering
percent of priority and enhance public
NDAs within 6 months. health by providing
quicker access to
important, lifesaving
drugs, and assuring
availability of safe
and effective drugs.
Drugs................................ Review and act on 45 Output................. Reduce human suffering
percent fileable and enhance public
original generic drug health by providing
application within 6 quicker access to
months after important, lifesaving
submission date. drugs, and assuring
availability of safe
and effective drugs.
Drugs................................ Inspect 22 percent of Output................. Prevent unnecessary
registered human injury and death to
manufacturers, American public caused
repackers, relabelers by adverse drug
and medical gas reactions, injuries,
repackers. medication errors and
product problems.
Biologics............................ Review and act on 90 Output................. Ensure the expeditious
percent of priority availability of safe
original NDA/PLA/BLA and effective human
submissions within 6 drugs, including
months of receipt. biologics, for
prevention, diagnosis,
and treatment of
disease.
Biologics............................ Meet the biennial Output................. Reduce the risk of
inspection statutory biologics products on
requirement by the market through
inspecting 50 percent assuring product
of registered blood quality and correcting
banks, source plasma problems associated
operations and with their production
biologics and use.
manufacturing
establishments.
Animal Drugs......................... Increase the level of Output................. Increase the
presubmission availability and
conferences with diversity of safe and
industry sponsors to effective animal drugs
75 percent. and feeds.
Animal Drugs......................... Review and act on 65 Output................. Increase the
percent of NADAs/ availability and
Abbreviated New Animal diversity of safe and
Drug Applications effective animal drugs
(ANADAs) within 180 and feeds.
days of receipt.
Animal Drugs......................... Improve biennial Output................. Reduce risks associated
inspection coverage by with marketed animal
inspecting 27 percent products.
of registered animal
drug and feed
establishments.
Medical Devices...................... Increase the on-time Output................. Provide quicker access
percentage of to important, life-
Premarket Approval saving and health-
Application (PMA) enhancing medical
first actions (within devices, while
180 days) and assuring their safety
Humanitarian Device and effectiveness.
Exemption (HDE) first
actions (within 75
days) completed to 85
percent.
Medical Devices...................... Review and complete 65 Output................. Provide quicker access
percent of 510(k) to important, life-
(Premarket saving and health-
Notification) final enhancing medical
actions within 90 days. devices, while
assuring their safety
and effectiveness.
Medical Devices...................... Inspect 24 percent of Output................. Reduce the risk of
Class II and Class III medical devices and
domestic medical radiation-emitting
device manufacturers. products on the market
by assuring product
quality and correcting
problems associated
with their production
and use.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. FDA's Office of Planning, OPL, uses a long-established
liaison system to work with each Center's staff that is responsible for
its Center's portion of the Performance Plan. Each OPL liaison has
received extensive training in the types of GPRA goals. OPL liaisons
consulted closely with the Centers' staffs during the development of
the goals. Once in draft form, OPL liaisons reviewed and provided
comments on the Performance goals back to the Centers' staffs. In many
cases, OPL liaisons offered suggestions so the goals would provide
outcome measures. The OPL liaisons meet weekly together to exchange
comments and suggestions to encourage Centers to develop outcome goals.
Finally, the OPL Director provided another review level to point out
possible improvements in goals.
Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
Answer. In addition to the liaison program mentioned in my previous
answer, the Office of Planning OPL has provided extensive GPRA training
to many parts of FDA. Between 1996 and 1997 a three-person OPL team
trained over 500 FDA personnel throughout the country on GPRA
requirements in three-day workshops. An integral part of this training
were lectures and exercises to identify, distinguish and write outcome
goals. OPL has followed up this initial training with workshops
tailored to Centers' specific needs. For instance, these workshops
often involve participants rewriting draft goals to become outcome
oriented.
While we believe that many managers understand the difference
between output and outcome goals, by necessity we include output goals
because many of our efforts provide information to an industry or the
public. Even with this information in hand, there may be many external
intervening factors that can affect the outcomes that we cannot
control. Because change can be difficult, there can be economic,
political, and cultural obstacles to altering people's behavior. For
instance, providing the public information may require new spending
patterns and challenging ingrained behavior.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
external customers.
Answer. Some examples of external customer satisfaction measures
are usefulness of information provided by FDA on food labels,
usefulness of Consumer Alerts about food safety problems, and consumer
awareness of FDA's mission. These measures were used as part of a
government-wide Customer Satisfaction Survey sponsored by the
President's Management Council. The particular group of FDA customers
targeted by this survey were the principal grocery shoppers and food
preparers in U.S. households. The agency has also committed to the
National Performance Review goal which focuses on the availability,
quality and usefulness of prescription drug information provided to
individuals who receive new medicines.
The agency applies a variety of performance measures to gauge
service to internal customers, including measures of quality and
timeliness of performance. Each of the agency's administrative support
functions, including human resource management, procurement,
facilities, information resource management and budgeting, are
incorporating such measures into their continuous improvement efforts.
Each week, executive officers from each of the agency's organizational
components meet to address concerns in these areas of internal customer
service. This meeting serves as an excellent forum for listening to
feedback from customers and engaging in problem solving. In addition,
the agency conducts periodic employee surveys to determine their degree
of satisfaction at FDA. Their satisfaction is measured by such
indicators as: job satisfaction, overall quality of the work being
done, recognition for doing a good job and degree of flexibility in
doing the work.
Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 2000
Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by this
committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact the
change would have on the level of program performance and the
achievement of various goals?
Answer. The agency's measurable fiscal year 2000 goals were
important, but not the only, inputs used in developing the fiscal year
2001 budget. We raised a series of questions during our planning and
budgeting process. First, what was our long range goal? Second, what
was our performance in fiscal year 1999? Third, how much closer did our
fiscal year 2000 performance goal bring us toward closing the gap
between actual and ideal? The gap between our fiscal year 2000
performance goals and our long range goals told us how much further we
had to go to reach our ideal. The selection of an fiscal year 2001
performance goal represented a conscious decision concerning how much
of the remaining gap we intended to close. The fiscal year 2001 budget
increases are an estimate of the resources that would be required to
achieve the fiscal year 2002 performance goals, as well as implement
other key strategies.
The area of drug inspections provides a good example of this
process at work: We knew that one long range goal in the area of drug
inspections was to meet our statutory biennial inspection requirement,
which meant inspecting at least 50 percent of the drug establishments
annually. Our fiscal year 1999 actual performance was 22 percent. We
had established the same 22 percent goal for fiscal year 2000, and knew
that ideally we would have to inspect an additional 28 percent of the
firms annually to meet the statutory requirement. We made a conscious
decision to set the fiscal year 2001 performance goal at 28 percent
rather than the statutory goal of 50 percent. The more modest
inspection goal in fiscal year 2001 was selected because FDA had to
also address higher priority health and safety risks such as imports,
needed to strengthen its science capability to address 21st Century
technology, and also wanted to invest in bringing the states up to
speed so that they could be more effective partners with FDA in the
future. The fiscal year 2001 budget request for drugs in the post
market arena reflects a balance in funding the above strategies.
If a proposed budget number is changed by your Committee we would
be able to estimate the likely impact of that change on our level of
program performance for those areas where we have measurable
performance goals. We would also be able to estimate the likely impact
on less quantitative proposals, such as the strengthening of an adverse
event reporting system; but the estimate would be made in qualitative
terms.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results?
If so, who has access to the information--senior management only,
or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
Are you able to gain access easily to various performance-related
data located throughout your various information systems?
Answer. We do have the capability to measure program performance in
those instances where performance goals are stated in quantitative
terms. We have the technological capability of reporting program
performance throughout the year on a regular basis. All levels of
management have access to that information, and our progress on key
performance goals are becoming increasingly available both on FDA's
intranet and on the internet as well. The agency is improving in its
ability to access performance-related data throughout the various
information systems. More of FDA's performance information is being
shared through the web as time goes on. We are generally aiming for
greater accessibility by all who have a need for this type of
information.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in the budget.
Many agencies have indicated that their present budget account
structure makes it difficult to link dollars to results in a clear and
meaningful way.
Have you faced such difficulty?
Answer. We have not been able to precisely link dollars to specific
performance goals and results. However, our present budget account
structure has not prevented us doing so. Rather, we do not have the
necessary performance data or cost accounting systems to establish
precise linkages between specific performance goals and results and
resources. We have estimated resources for broad categories of goals
based on our strategic goals and programs. For example, we estimate
aggregate dollars for human drug premarket activities. We have also
been able to estimate approximate changes to performance goal targets
based on changes to related budget requests and final appropriations.
However, it is not easy to estimate dollar amounts or FTE needed to
meet specific statutory requirements or performance targets or to
report on performance. Many factors affect performance. Using a risk
based strategy the agency will emphasize higher priority risks over
lower priority risks. Also, as we pursue more leveraging opportunities,
we will have additional start up costs, set up time, and training
requirements for our partners. Improving the agency's science capacity
upon which decisions are based will also require resources and time. We
need to expand our electronic submission and review capabilities,
update our laboratories, and continuously train our staff in the
scientific advancements that are creating the new products subject to
FDA regulation. Allocating these investments which are intended to
improve overall performance to specific performance results is very
challenging.
Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
structure were modified?
Answer. We do not believe that the linkages would be clearer if the
budget account structure were modified. As described above, the
difficulties in establishing linkages are not caused by the budget
account structure.
Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
to this committee than the present structure?
Answer. We do not propose modifying our budget account structure.
Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. We do not propose modifying our budget account structure.
Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
government functions; and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
perform these functions.
Could you comment on your agency's cost accounting expertise and
plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. FDA has a good understanding of the resource requirements
needed to achieve most of its performance goals. Inspectional coverage
of food establishments, review time for new drug applications, and
assessment of mammography facility quality are a few examples of areas
in which good performance data are available or will be available soon.
With that information, we can demonstrate how resources impact program
performance. We have been able through analysis to discern the
difference between available resources and the necessary resources to
achieve the highest performance possible. This analysis also helped
illustrate FDA's continuing need to set risk-based priorities.
As we continue to gain experience in implementing GPRA, we improve
our ability to evaluate the impact of changes in funding level on our
programs and our ability to achieve the performance commitments
outlined in the Annual Performance Plan. In some instances, changes in
funding level may require an increase or decrease in program efforts
and target level of performance. It may require development of new
performance goals.
Over the past few years, FDA has practiced several strategies for
operating with reduced resources in spite of an increasing workload.
These strategies have included reducing program efforts, refocusing
program efforts to target the highest priority health risks, and re-
examining the role we play in protecting public health relative to
other government agencies, third parties, and industry. Some of those
strategic changes have caused us to change our activity measures. In
some instances, for example, the number of inspections conducted is not
as appropriate a measure as the percentage of products approved by
third-party sources. However, changes in approach will not change the
agency's desire to improve health outcomes.
The performance goals in the annual performance plan link directly
to the budget. Each individual performance goal supports a somewhat
broader program strategic goal, which in turn supports a major FDA
program. In the performance plan, budgeted amounts, both dollars and
FTE, are aggregated at the program strategic goal level. So, for each
major program area, the total budget request represents the total of
the program strategic goal amounts.
FDA implemented managerial cost accounting as a pilot program
during fiscal year 1997, in order to meet the Chief Financial Officers
Act requirement for a ``statement of net costs''. The pilot initiated
efforts to design, document, and implement the process of measuring
full cost of FDA programs. A series of Excel worksheets were created
identifying the resources consumed. In fiscal year 1999, total costs
were allocated to 7 programs. Using the Excel format, the resources (or
cost elements) were subsequently assigned directly, or allocated
indirectly to the FDA components that consumed them. Additionally, the
worksheets were linked in a manner where the data for each cost element
was summarized and uploaded into published report formats. We also have
experience in cost accounting as required by the Prescription Drug User
Fee Act.
Integration of the budget and the annual performance plan is a
continuous learning process. We continue to look for meaningful ways to
relate Agency outcomes with resource allocation decisions. With no
single answer on the horizon, we continue to emphasize agency results
as a key driver for fiscal decisions.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to
have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting.
The clearly preferred methodology for such a system, as stated in
that standard, is the one known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby
the full cost is calculated for each of the activities of an agency.
What is the status of your agency's implementation of the
Managerial Cost Accounting requirement, and are you using Activity-
Based Costing?
Will you be able in the future to show to this committee the full
and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including in those
calculations such items as administration, employee benefits, and
depreciation?
By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely the
relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs of
the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
activities?
Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each activity and
result?
To what extent do the dollars associated with any particular
performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated activities
performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead costs
fully allocated to goals?
Answer. FDA is evaluating the need to enhance our existing system
in order to support cost accounting requirements of the new accounting
standards recommended by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory
Board, and issued by OMB for the other major programs and sub-programs
in FDA. These enhancements will improve FDA's ability to adequately
gauge the performance measurement activity.
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
the development of the agency's performance plan.
Answer. Several significant reform measures have been implemented,
many of them mandated by FDAMA. The agency's performance plan contains
specific goals, strategies and reports on accomplishments which reflect
the agency's commitment to successfully implementing these reforms.
Some of the key reforms highlighted in the performance plan include: a
new notification process for dietary supplements containing new
ingredients; a pre-market notification process for food contact
substances; an initiative requesting additional pediatric information
on clinical trials for new drugs; redesigning the Animal Drug Approval
process to make it more efficient for FDA and industry; and reinventing
many of the medical device premarket review processes to use resources
more effectively and efficiently. Through regulatory reform efforts
such as these, the agency has been able to improve the transparency of
its processes, and facilitate participation by outside stakeholders.
These reforms also enable the agency to focus on specific risk
priorities, as in the case of dietary supplements and obtaining
additional information on the impact of new drugs on children in the
clinical trial setting. The performance plan provides an operational
document which is used to help manage the implementation of these
important new steps for FDA.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 performance plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievement?
If so, what steps have you identified to prepare, anticipate and
plan for such influences?
What impact might external factors have on your resource estimates?
Answer. Yes, FDA's fiscal year 2000 Performance Plan identifies
external factors that could influence goal achievement in the goal-by-
goal presentation of performance of each FDA Program. Within the goal
by goal presentation, external factors are discussed in the narrative
description of each performance goal, the sections called ``Context of
Goal'' and ``Performance''. External influences include changes in our
workload and changes in the environment in which FDA operates, the
increasing complexity and sophistication of the industries we regulate,
and the ever-increasing development of new products that evolve from
emerging technologies are also among external factors that may present
obstacles to the achievement of our goals.
In developing our program strategies, we have taken several steps
to prepare, anticipate and plan for external influences. First, we make
every effort to keep abreast of changes in our external environment
through ongoing analysis of emerging issues, industry trends and
existing and proposed policy and legislation. Occasionally, a
particular public health issue may warrant special studies. Such
studies allow us to gain insight on the various facets of the problem
and to identify the most effective intervention strategies. Second,
consultations with our stakeholders, contacts with trade associations
and collaboration with partners provide valuable information and forums
for exploring strategic alternatives and for identifying synergies and
competing interests. This has become increasingly important now that
FDA shares the responsibility for achieving national public health
objectives, such as those of Health People 2010 and the Food Safety
Initiative, with many government and non-governmental organizations.
Third, the monitoring of FDA program performance and effectiveness
provides valuable information about how the agency's efforts impact
public health. Fourth, the agency engages in strategic and operational
planning both at the program level and the agency level. In developing
agency strategic approaches, program planners and budget officers focus
on strategies that leverage FDA resources to achieve the maximum public
health impact despite external influences that potentially impede our
progress.
FDA functions in a rapidly changing environment. Many factors that
influence the achievement of our public health objectives are partially
controlled by other organizations or are outside our direct influence
and control. In addition, we acknowledge that despite our best efforts
to anticipate and identify effective remedies to counteract the adverse
effects of certain negative factors, unforeseen problems may arise. As
a consequence, we may find that an unforseen change in our environment
adversely affects our ability to attain some of FDA's performance
targets and that the additional resources to address some external
factors.
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication?
If so, does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or
duplication?
Answer. Potential overlaps were identified during the agency's
deliberations about fiscal year 2001 strategies, but as a result of
those strategic discussions the overlaps were eliminated prior to the
development of the performance plan. The performance plan reflects a
clear division of responsibilities among the agency programs. Each
program does address similar functional responsibilities--e.g.,
science-based pre-market review, and post-market surveillance,
compliance and outreach. But the implementation of these
responsibilities is tailored to the unique challenges addressed by each
center.
Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
and if so, how?
Answer. Yes, agencies should and FDA does address management
challenges, as well as potential duplication as part of their strategic
and performance planning process. This is accomplished through the
formation of `corporate' strategic teams that are composed of
individuals representing all organizational components. Each team is
assigned to a major strategic area that the Agency is pursuing. The
teams identify management challenges for the future in their respective
areas, and formulate strategies for addressing these strategies. As
part of the strategy development process, teams coordinate with each
other and identify potential overlaps. The performance plan is a
reflection of the division of responsibility agreed to by the teams and
also clearly allocates a division of responsibility among FDA's
centers.
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
guide decision making?
Will this use increase in the future and if so in what ways?
Answer. GPRA principles are adhered to by FDA's leadership as they
make strategic decisions about the agency's future directions,
operational decisions about the specific performance goals that they
are willing to commit to, and budget decisions which will adequately
fund these commitments. As the agency gains further experience in
implementing GPRA, we will improve our ability to evaluate the impact
of changes in funding levels on our programs and our ability to achieve
the performance commitments outlined in the Annual Performance Plan.
FDA leaders will also be in a better position during the coming year to
use information on actual performance to help make mid-course
adjustments to plans. The ability to monitor performance, analyze
variance and make decisions on adjustments will be further strengthened
as the agency's information systems and web-based capabilities provide
managers with greater access to performance information. Also,
increasingly, GPRA-type of performance goals are being incorporated
into the individual performance plans of senior executives. This
enables their individual efforts to be directly linked to the agency's
program commitments.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that:
To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature to
allow for these kinds of uses?
Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making estimates for
certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the accuracy of
resource estimates?
Answer. The maturity of our performance measures varies from
program to program. In PDUFA-funded areas, for example, performance
measures have remained relatively stable during the past several years.
New measures have been added to implement PDUFA II, but the original
measures are essentially the same. Because of this stability, the
information and cost systems that support this endeavor have also
matured and are able to provide reliable data. In the area of
inspections, information systems do provide intelligence on actual
performance, as well as costs associated with achieving target
performance levels. In areas where significant reinvention has
occurred, neither data bases nor base lines have yet been established
which will allow the agency to report on historical progress. Thus,
there would be no reference points from which goals could be
established with a high level of confidence. FDAMA presented the agency
with several regulatory reforms that required the creation of new
review processes. Performance measures in these areas are not
sufficiently mature to be used in a performance management setting.
In several other areas, the agency is investing new efforts in
leveraging its own limited assets with partners such as states, the
health professionals, other agencies and the regulated industry. These
leveraging initiatives should ultimately yield greater returns on
investment to FDA in terms of stronger science-based regulatory
decisions, faster review times and increased inspection coverage.
Although review times and inspection coverage are the same kinds of
performance measures that the agency currently uses, the estimates of
funding required to achieve performance gains will be much less
certain. This is because initial investments in leveraging will not
yield immediate gains in performance. Time will be required to
determine the cost profiles associated with a new way of doing
business.
Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements?
Specifically, are you requesting any relaxation of transfer or
reprogramming controls in return for specific accountability
commitments?
Answer. No, we are not requesting a relation of transfer or
reprogramming controls in return for specific accountability
commitments.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 2000 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. I believe that you are referring to the HHS Strategic
Plan--not an FDA-specific strategic plan. The HHS Plan is in the
process of being redrafted at this time. We suggested some
modifications to FDA's contributions to the HHS Plan. Specifically, we
placed additional emphasis on the fact that FDA would focus its future
efforts on strengthening the science base of the agency. This is viewed
as absolutely essential in order to keep pace with science and
technology advancements so that FDA can pass judgements on the products
and processes of these new advancements. We also suggested that FDA's
future reliance on leveraging as a primary way of doing business be
given greater emphasis in the HHS Strategic Plan.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND
I have some concerns about the possible effect on small businesses
of FDA's final rule on the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, which was
published on December 3, 1999. The FDA's small business analysis of the
rule noted that 94 percent of pharmaceutical distribution firms, or
about 4,000 companies, are small businesses. I have several questions
about the rule and its small business impact:
Question. It is my understanding that nearly all of these 4,000
small businesses would have to provide their customers with a very
detailed sales history for each product they wished to resell. If they
cannot obtain the required information from whomever they buy the
products from, is it correct that they would not be able to legally
resell the prescription drug products?
Answer. If the wholesalers who do not buy directly from the
manufacturer cannot obtain the detailed prior sales history required by
the final rule and they sell the product anyway, they would be
violating the requirements of the rule.
Question. Does the final rule require manufacturers or authorized
distributors to provide this detailed information to firms who purchase
from them?
Answer. The final rule is consistent with the statute and the
legislative history. Manufacturers or authorized distributors are not
required to provide the sales history but unauthorized distributors are
required to provide the sales history. The statute requires wholesale
distributors who are not the manufacturer or an authorized distributor
to provide a statement identifying each prior sale, purchase, or trade
of such drug. There is no indication in the Prescription Drug Marketing
Act, PDMA that Congress intended that the statement or pedigree include
only those sales, purchases or trades since the drug was last handled
by an authorized distributor. Moreover, the legislative history of PDMA
indicates that the pedigree must include all previous sales of the
product. Thus, an unauthorized distributor would be required to provide
a full drug origin statement in accordance with PDMA and the final rule
whether or not it has purchased a prescription drug from an authorized
distributor of record. Although FDA has encouraged authorized
distributors to provide a pedigree to unauthorized distributors, they
are not required under PDMA to do so. Note, FDA has extended the
effective date of this part of FDA's final rule and we are willing to
consider the additional comments and information presently being
provided to assist in developing a solution to this potential problem.
Question. Is it possible that this rule will drive some of these
small resellers out of business? If so, how many resellers do you think
are at-risk? If many of these small distributors were to go out-of-
business, what would be the impact on prescription drug prices? Would
we risk disruption in the supply of prescription drugs?
Answer. FDA agrees there could be a negative impact if thousands of
drug resellers were forced out of business. However, because the PDMA
has been in effect since 1988, FDA does not believe that this will
occur and does not believe that there will be a disruption in the
supply of prescription drugs to retailers and consumers. Assurances to
consumers that they are not receiving subpotent, adulterated,
counterfeit or misbranded drugs will be strengthened by the procedural
and recordkeeping requirements of the final rule. In any event, FDA is
willing to work with Congress and others to resolve the concerns raised
and allay any fears of supply disruption.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SLADE GORTON
Question. As you know, Congress debated The Food and Drug
Administration Modernization Act (FDAMA) for 3 years, from 1994 to
1997, with the purpose of streamlining the FDA and its product approval
process for drugs, medical devices, etc. One of the key provisions in
the Act involves FDA having a quasi-private-public partnership, using
independent 3rd party scientific review organizations to make product
approval recommendations to the FDA. Companies would pay 3rd parties to
review their products, and the FDA would accredit these 3rd parties, as
well as sign off on their final recommendations. I understand that the
3rd party system isn't working very well, because the list of products
currently eligible for the program is very limited, to low-end
products. Last year, this subcommittee allocated the largest increase
for CDRH ever. In light of these new dollars, what is the FDA doing to
expand the 3rd party program this year?
Answer. Currently, 154 devices are eligible for third-party
review--including many significant devices such as diagnostic
ultrasound systems, magnetic resonance imagers, endoscopes, and cardiac
monitors--and at least 2 of the 13 Accredited Persons are available to
review each of the devices. In fiscal year 1999, the agency received
more than 1,200 510(k) submissions for the 154 devices, representing
nearly 50 percent of all 510(k)s that are potentially eligible for
third-party review based on the criteria in section 523(a)(3) of the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. An important milestone of the
third-party review program occurs when the agency notifies Congress
that at least two third-parties are accredited to review at least 60
percent of 510(k) submissions. FDA expects to meet the 60 percent
milestone with the next expansion of the eligible device list, which we
plan to announce soon. In addition, the Administration's fiscal year
2001 budget proposal includes a proposal for additive device user fees
to help jump-start the third-party program. The revenue from these fees
would be used to provide information about the availability of third-
party reviews and to subsidize the cost of these reviews.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL
With respect to the FDA's regulations issued December 3, 1999
implementing the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, I am concerned that
wholesale distributors will not be able to comply with the requirement
that they provide a statement identifying prior sales back to the
manufacturer. This is because many of the distributors buy from full
line authorized distributors who are not required by PDMA to provide
such information. This aspect of the final rule is inconsistent with
the contemporaneous interpretation that the industry has operated under
for the past twelve years.
Question. In its final rule, why did FDA change from its 1988
guidance to its present rule requiring a statement identifying prior
sales that go back to the manufacturer?
Answer. FDA investigations have found that secondary wholesalers
who are diverting prescription drugs will ship the drugs through an
authorized distributor in order to erase, or wash, the record of all
sales of the drugs prior to the authorized distributor. Since the
Prescription Drug Marketing Act, PDMA, does not impose the drug
pedigree--statement of origin-requirement on authorized distributors,
the pedigree is--washed--with the drugs' passage through the authorized
distributor, with the result that all sales of the drugs prior to the
authorized distributor are erased. The secondary wholesaler can then
claim that they purchased the drugs from an authorized distributor
without divulging the true source or sources of the drugs. Traceability
of the drugs through the wholesale distribution system is also,
therefore, erased.
Question. What evidence does FDA have that authorized distributors
who are not required by PDMA to provide prior sales histories of the
drugs they sell will do so voluntarily?
Answer. Although FDA has encouraged authorized distributors to
provide a pedigree to unauthorized distributors, they are not required
under PDMA to do so. In any event, we have extended the effective date
of that part of the final rule and are willing to consider the
additional comments and information presently being provided to assist
in developing a solution to this potential problem.
Question. Has FDA determined the cost to authorized distributors of
implementing the same system of providing prior sales information that
is now required of distributors who are not authorized?
Answer. As noted in the preamble to the final rule, most of the
requirements in the proposed rule were already implemented by the
industry in response to the enactment of the PDMA, FDA's guidance, and
industry trade association recommendations. Therefore, the agency, in
section IV, of the final rule determined that there would be one-time
costs of $318,000 for developing forms, and total annual costs of
approximately $82 million. Of these costs, approximately $39 million
has already been incurred by industry since Congress enacted PDMA in
1988.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HERB KOHL
Question. Please provide information describing in detail the
activities conducted by FDA using funds included as part of the Food
Safety Initiative in fiscal year 2000 and proposed for fiscal year
2001.
Answer. I will be happy to provide this information for the record.
[The information follows.]
food safety initiative
For fiscal year 2000, FDA received a $30 million increase for the
President's Food Safety Initiative and thanks the Committee for their
continued support. The additional resources are being targeted to
further developing a nationally integrated, seamless, and science-based
food safety, enhancing public health surveillance and increasing the
speed and efficiency of responses to outbreaks of foodborne illness,
and placing greater emphasis on the control of foodborne hazards in the
pre-harvest phase of the farm-to-table continuum. Specifically the
funds will be used to:
--Begin development of an electronic communication and data sharing
system for use in Federal-state monitoring and traceback
activities;
--Expand and increase the overall capacity of the National
Antimicrobial Resistance and Monitoring System (NARMS) and the
number of States covered to assure a higher probability of
detecting emerging resistant pathogens capable of animal to
human transmission and to minimize the occurrence of foodborne
outbreaks including those from outside the United States;
--Increase inspection coverage and frequency of coverage of domestic
firms, with top priority given to firms processing ``high-
risk'';
--Increase the number of inspections of foreign processors and
conduct evaluations of foreign food production systems;
--Provide training to State and local food safety officials and
industry in the effective use of preventive control systems,
such as HACCP and to perform inspections of HACCP systems;
--Develop methods for predicting the risk associated with foodborne
pathogens and partnerships with government, industry, and
academic scientists to conduct studies that demonstrate
comparability of disease across species;
--Continue a program of research in quantitative risk assessment that
is targeted to address the limitations in risk assessment
methodologies;
--Continue to build the activities of the interagency Risk Assessment
Consortium and to continue development, through the Joint
Institute of Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, of the Risk
Assessment Clearinghouse; and
--Continue to develop and provide multi-lingual education programs
for food service workers and to implement a national education
and training program to ensure greater safety in retail food
preparation practices, including the use of HACCP principles in
retail establishments.
The fiscal year 2001 request builds upon three years of intense
work and cooperation among FDA, CDC, and USDA, as well as State and
Local Health agencies. FDA's request would, among other things, ensure
annual inspections of high-risk food establishments and enhance the
supporting laboratory analyses; work with states to implement audit
programs to ensure consistent application of regulations and develop
consistent nationwide food safety standards; implement the Hazard
Analysis Critical Control Point system for fruit and vegetable juices;
develop and evaluate on-farm intervention strategies and/or
technologies to improve testing methodologies for Salmonella
Enteriditis (the Egg Safety Action Plan); and complete the National
Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System by adding national and
international data collection sites.
Question. To what extent has FDA's role in the Food Safety
Initiative reduced the health threat of imported foods?
Answer. On March 17, CDC reported a 20 percent reduction in overall
foodborne illnesses associated with pathogens through their active
surveillance network--Foodnet. The Centers for Disease Control--CDC,
credited the federal, state and industry food safety partnership
activities, such as Fight Bac!; HACCP and Good Agriculture Practices as
major contributors to this public health improvement. CDC also
reiterated the need to continue to make similar strides in prevention,
improved food safety systems and outbreak response.
Additionally, the overall picture of trends for food safety
knowledge and practices that emerges from research is quite
encouraging. Between 1993 and 1998, the public's food safety practices,
both the consumption of risky foods and food handling behaviors in home
kitchens, show dramatic improvement. For example, for the population as
a whole, the incidence of eating pink hamburger is down 33 percent and
the incidence of eating raw oysters or clams is down 39 percent. The
safety of reported hand-washing and cutting board practices has also
improved markedly. The improvement is particularly strong for handling
meat or chicken, which improved 74 percent compared to a 27 percent
improvement for fish. Knowledge levels about microbial food pathogens
increased, along with rising perceptions of the possible risk of
getting foodborne illness.
That is not to say that there are no consumer education issues to
be addressed. There are obvious gaps in consumer knowledge, attitudes
and practices related to food safety. For example, although awareness
of salmonella appears to be on the rise, most consumers still do not
handle eggs very carefully and they are more likely to consume
undercooked eggs or foods containing raw eggs than any other risky
food. Most consumes have never heard of Listeria or Campylobacter,
which are at least as prevalent in the food supply as the more well
known pathogens, Salmonella or E. Coli.
The Food Safety Initiative has provided necessary resources for FDA
to undertake the enormous challenge of foodborne illness. Even more is
expected of this Agency as its responsibility encompasses a broader
array of regulated products and potential hazards in foods.
Question. Can FDA quantify the amount of unsafe food items that
enter this country uninspected?
Answer. No, however, we are able to quantify the total number of
FDA regulated food products that are offered for entry into the United
States. From January 1-December 31, 1999, 3.4 million food or food
related products were offered for entry. Of these products, two percent
were refused entry due to their failure to meet FDA's regulations or
because they were determined to be unsafe for human use.
BOTTLED WATER STUDY
The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 required a report
related to bottled drinking water. Since that time, FDA has been
charged with preparing a study on this subject for which the Senate
Report for the Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriations Act directs completion
by March 2000. The 1996 Amendments required a final report no later
than February 1999. I now understand FDA has moved the completion date
until later in the year.
Question. Please explain why FDA is causing a further delay for a
report that has been pending for nearly four years?
Answer. In January 2000, FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition--CFSAN, published its workplan, titled ``2000 CFSAN Program
Priorities,'' to inform its stakeholders about CFSAN's priorities for
the fiscal year. The workplan includes A and B list goals. Items on the
A-list are projects that will be completed this fiscal year. Items on
the B-list are projects on which CFSAN intends to make progress this
year, but will likely not complete.
Among our A-list goals, pursuant to Senate Report 106-80, CFSAN
will publish a ``Bottled Water Feasibility Study,'' examining the
feasibility of appropriate methods of informing consumers about the
contents of bottled water as mandated by the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendment of 1996. The draft ``Bottled Water Feasibility Study'' was
published on February 22, 2000. We expect this study to be finalized by
August 2000.
Question. Will FDA be able to complete this report by a date more
in line with the congressional directive?
Answer. The draft bottled water feasibility study was published on
February 22, 2000. The comment period for the draft study will close on
April 24, 2000. The final feasibility study is on CFSAN's list of
priorities for this fiscal year, and we have requested an extension of
the due date until August 2000 to complete this report. We believe we
can meet an August 2000 completion date, given the amount of time
needed for the evaluation of comments and development of the final
report.
SEAFOOD INSPECTION FROM COMMERCE
Question. The President's budget proposes to transfer the voluntary
seafood inspection program from the Department of Commerce to the FDA.
Some have expressed concern that this action may undermine the public
confidence provided by Seafood HAACP. Please respond to that concern.
Answer. Rather than undermine public confidence, such a transfer
could strengthen it. Transferring the National Marine Fisheries
Service--NMFS, voluntary program to FDA would establish FDA as the sole
seafood agency with one HACCP standard. FDA would be able to train the
voluntary inspectors in the regulatory HACCP standard along with the
regulatory inspectors. Consequently, FDA may be able to contract with
the voluntary inspectors to perform certain regulatory HACCP
inspections or, in certain instances, to count a voluntary inspection
as a regulatory inspection. The result is that the transfer would
provide a skilled cadre of inspectors to implement FDA's regulatory
HACCP program. Industry will benefit by eliminating redundant
inspections at the federal level. Consumers will benefit by improved
food safety resulting from inspections based on a single HACCP standard
established by FDA.
FDA believes that safeguards could be put in place to eliminate a
potential conflict of interest that could undermine public confidence
in the current seafood HACCP program. While the legislation would
authorize PBO inspectors to perform regulatory HACCP inspections, FDA
would adopt precautions to ensure the objectivity and credibility of
the inspection. For instance, FDA could adopt a policy of utilizing PBO
inspectors to perform regulatory inspections only for seafood firms
that are not also paying customers of the PBO. In the end, FDA can
always utilize its regulatory inspection force as a check against the
PBO inspection force to ensure that the public health is protected.
FOOD CONTACT SUBSTANCE
The Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriation Act provided an increase for
premarket application reviews of food contact substances.
Question. How much of FDA's fiscal year 2000 budget was directed
for this purpose?
Answer. For fiscal year 2000, funding of $6 million was provided to
FDA to fully implement the food contact substance notification program
established by FDA Modernization Act.
Question. Does FDA require any additional resources to fully meet
the needs of this premarket review process?
Answer. Our current estimate is that $6 million would adequately
fund this program in fiscal year 2001. FDA notes that this program has
only recently begun to operate. As we gain experience with the
notification program, and obtain better information about the number
and complexity of notifications we can expect to receive, we may need
to refine our cost estimates for future years.
GINSENG
The Senate Report to accompany the Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriations
Act includes language that calls FDA's attention to potential problems
of adulterated ginseng imports.
Question. What specific actions has FDA taken in response to this
language?
Answer. FDA received information suggesting that a significant
amount of imported ginseng may be treated with pesticides that are not
approved for use in ginseng in the United States. In response to this
information, FDA decided to determine the scope of the problem in
September 1998. Accordingly, FDA collected samples of imports between
October 1998 and May 1999. A total of 56 samples were collected and
analyzed for organochlorine and organophosphate pesticide residues. Of
the 56 ginseng samples analyzed, 33, or 58.9 percent were found to be
violative for pesticide residues and appropriate regulatory action was
taken.
I would like to provide a chart for the record that shows the
countries in which the violative samples originated.
[The information follows:]
IMPORTED GINSENG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Country Number of samples regulatory actions
collected taken
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China/Hong Kong................. 38 18
Korea........................... 13 10
Canada.......................... 5 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A total of 28 different manufacturers or shippers were involved in
shipping violative ginseng samples from the countries listed above and
were named on an Import Alert.
An Import Alert identifies and disseminates import information
about problem commodities and/or shippers and provides guidance to FDA
personnel on import coverage.
EGG SAFETY
Last year, the FDA proposed a warning label for eggs. I have heard
from egg producers who feel it is overly alarmist and would prefer a
different label; they do not oppose the concept of labeling, only the
specific label the agency proposed.
Question. Can you give us some insight into your thinking on this
label, and whether you are considering any changes to what you proposed
last year?
Answer. From the results of previous focus group research on label
statements used to alert consumers to potential hazards in foods--
namely, iron supplements and fresh or unprocessed fruit and vegetable
juice warning statements, FDA determined that certain types of
information was required to adequately inform consumers about the
potential risks associated with the food. In particular, our focus
group research indicated that for consumers to understand and modify
their behavior with regard to a particular food there needed to be an
information statement explaining why there was a risk associated with
the food. This information statement was especially important if the
information was considered new information. In crafting the proposed
safe handling instructions for eggs, FDA considered that consumers
needed to be given information on why the product presented a risk.
Accordingly, FDA proposed to include a sentence in the statement that
informed the consumer that the eggs may contain harmful bacteria known
to cause serious illness in children, the elderly, and persons with
weakened immune systems. FDA included these groups because they are
generally at higher risk of serious illness from food borne pathogens
than the rest of the population.
FDA received several comments objecting to the introductory
sentence in the proposed safe handling instructions. We also received
comments offering alternative wording for the safe handling
instructions, as well as those asserting that the presence of
Salmonella in eggs was not new information.
CONSUMER INFORMATION
Question. To what extent does the ``Take Time to Care Initiative''
duplicate the ``MedGuide'' program?
Answer. The programs were created to complement each other, not
duplicate each other. As part of its mission, FDA makes approval
decisions for new products based on a balancing the risks and benefits
of a given product. Yet, that is just one small part of the process--
all along the way, from the manufacturer who makes a drug, to the
prescriber who writes a prescription, the pharmacist who fills the
prescription, to the patients and consumers who make decisions about
product use for themselves and their families, we all have a role to
play in minimizing product risks.
Because women are the primary users of medicines and typically
administer medicines to their families--they are ultimately the risk
managers for their families--The Take Time to Care Initiative focuses
on them. Women need to take charge of their own health and learn about
proper use of medicines for themselves and in their role as family
caregivers. Through this program, we have emphasized that there are
very easy ways to do this, including: reading labels, keeping track of
their medications, avoiding sharing or skipping of medications, keeping
track of the basic side effects, and, simply--but importantly--asking
questions. These very easy steps can ultimately have a very large
impact on reduction in adverse events from medical products.
In this effort, FDA's Office of Women's Health partnered with more
than 70 organizations in the ``Take Time to Care'' campaign, which
distributed the My Medicines brochure to help women safely use
medications. The brochure is available at the FDA website: www.fda.gov/
womens/tttc or by calling toll free 1-888-8-PUEBLO.
In addition, FDA's Medication Guide program would provide
additional information to patients and consumers regarding the
prescription drugs that they receive for themselves and their families.
Medication Guides contain specific information about each drug--
information about dosage, warnings, contraindications, and other
critical information to help individuals take their medications
accurately and effectively. This program provides the specific
information about each drug, ensuring that it is conveyed to the
patient or consumer in a manner that is clear and intelligible. In
contrast, the Take Time to Care Initiative is focused more broadly,
underscoring the importance of reading and following such information.
INTERNET DRUG SALES
Question. Please provide information regarding identified problems
related to current internet drug sales practices and the specific
manner in which your proposal would solve these problems?
Answer. The Internet has provided a new marketplace for sales of
unapproved new drugs including counterfeit drugs, prescription drugs
sold without a prescription, drugs imported or re-imported illegally,
and products marketed with fraudulent claims. Patients who buy
prescription drugs from websites that engage in such illegal activities
are at risk for adverse effects from inappropriately prescribed
medications, dangerous drug interactions, and contaminated drugs. As
you know, long before the Internet was created, Congress and the State
legislatures enacted a comprehensive system of premarket approval,
prescription drug designations, practioner evaluation and pharmacy
dispensing to protect patients from injuries resulting from unsafe or
counterfeit drugs and from the illicit practice of medicine and
pharmacy This system has worked well over the years.
Because the current laws were not enacted with the Internet in
mind, however, they do not provide regulatory and law enforcement
agencies with fully effective tools to protect consumers from operators
of online pharmacies that engage in illegal activities. For example,
both consumers and law enforcement officials may have difficulty
identifying the name, location, and State licensure of physicians,
pharmacists, and online pharmacy operators. Even if the parties can be
identified, because the Internet is largely unconstrained by State and
national boundaries, States--traditionally the primary regulators of
the practice of pharmacy and the practice of medicine are undercut in
their efforts to regulate online pharmacies. Finally, both State and
Federal agencies are limited in the causes of action that may be
brought against illegal online sellers of prescription drugs.
The Administration's proposal is designed to provide sufficient
safeguards to protect the public health effectively without hindering
the enormous potential benefit of the Internet. In addition, the
proposal is designed to enhance the effectiveness of the Federal-State
partnership in the regulation of prescription drugs and recognize the
importance of the States' traditional role in regulating the practice
of medicine and pharmacy. Accordingly, the proposal would support and
strengthen the States' authority too enforce applicable law within
their borders, while providing enhanced Federal authority to monitor
the multistate and interstate aspects of Internet prescription drug
sales. By filling gaps in Federal and State authority, the bill seeks
to curb illegal sales of prescription drugs and to ensure that
consumers are receiving safe and effective drugs prescribed by health
care professionals, and dispensed by pharmacies that properly licensed.
The proposal will allow legitimate online pharmacies to be much more
easily distinguished from illegal online pharmacies, which will enhance
consumer safety and confidence, and level the playing field for
legitimate online pharmacies by reducing their illegal competition.
Question. To what extent do you believe further regulation of
internet drug sales will impair or reduce the availability of drugs
through this medium?
Answer. New legislation regarding Internet drug sales will not
reduce the availability of legally prescribed and dispensed medications
through this medium, however, it will reduce the availability of
illegal medications distributed through this medium. By increasing
consumer confidence in the Internet as a medium for prescription drug
sales, new regulations will advance the interests of legitimate online
pharmacies.
Question. If you think further regulation of internet drug sales
will have no effect on the availability of prescription drugs, please
explain.
Answer. The legislation only targets illegal sellers of
prescription drugs and would have little effect on those entities who
are properly licensed by states and abiding by state and federal law.
ORPHAN DRUGS/EVERGREENING
Under current law, companies which bring certain orphan drug
products to the market are granted a 7 year exclusivity period in which
they are allowed to help recoup their development costs for that
product. However, under a so-called ``Evergreen'' provision, any
company which develops a further improvement of that product is granted
a further 7 year exclusivity period for the entire product, not just
for the ``improved'' component. This combination of factors can
potentially lead to a product's exclusivity period running indefinitely
and, thereby, cutting off competition and related cost savings to the
consumer.
Question. Please explain why the exclusivity of a product
improvement attaches to the entire product?
Answer. Under the Orphan Drug Act, if a drug is designated for an
orphan indication and is approved for that indication, it will receive
seven years of exclusivity. During this seven-year period, the agency
will not approve or license the same drug from another sponsor.
However, the first sponsor's exclusivity it not a barrier to approval
of a product that is not the same drug. If a subsequent sponsor
demonstrates that its drug for the same indication is not the same
drug, either because it is chemically not the same, as defined in the
orphan drug regulation, or clinically superior, the second product will
be approved. If the second drug was designated for the orphan
indication, it will also receive orphan exclusivity. The statute does
not limit the drugs eligible for orphan exclusivity, or the scope of
that exclusivity, on the basis of indication, chemistry, or clinical
behavior.
Question. To what extent would consumers benefit from cost savings
if the exclusivity attached only to the improvement?
Answer. It is well established generally that the entry onto the
market of the first generic version of a drug begins what may
ultimately be a sharp decline in the price. This is described in How
Increased Competition from Generic Drugs Has Affected Prices and
Returns in the Pharmaceutical Industry, July 1998, Congressional Budget
Office. However, generic drugs are duplicates of innovator products and
thus may be promoted by the sponsors only in the same manner as the
innovator product. In contrast, an orphan drug exclusivity program that
permitted the agency to approve any new orphan drug that did not copy a
particular protected improvement could result in the introduction of
new ``innovator'' products that would attempt to distinguish themselves
from the other marketed products, and not result in any cost savings to
consumers. It is useful to note that the availability of multiple
``innovator'' human growth hormone and erythropoetin products on the
market for orphan indications has not resulted in a meaningful decrease
in the cost of these drugs to consumers. In addition, because the
expressed goal of the Orphan Drug Act is to encourage investment in
drugs for rare diseases and conditions, it is important to keep in mind
the need for adequate financial incentives for continuing development
and improvement of these treatments. Although the availability of
generic drugs is a continuing priority for the agency, any discussion
of generic drugs for orphan diseases would be fruitless if innovator
companies do not first develop needed orphan products.
Question. Please compare this feature of orphan drug products to
other drug or device products which enjoy periods of marketing
exclusivity.
Answer. Every exclusivity under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, FFD&C Act, that gives drugs some form of market
protection has different characteristics. For example, there are
substantial differences in what aspect of a drug is protected by each
form of exclusivity. ``New chemical entity'' exclusivity under section
505(c)(3)(D)(ii) and 505(j)(5)(D)(ii) of the Act protects the active
moiety of the drug from competition from other products containing the
same moiety, regardless of whether the subsequent drug is for the same
indication, has the same formulation, the same dosage form. In
contrast, orphan drug exclusivity protects only the particular drug for
the designated orphan indication; a subsequent applicant can obtain
approval of the same drug for a different indication, even in the face
of orphan exclusivity. In addition to differences in what aspect of a
drug is protected, forms of exclusivity differ in what competition is
prohibited. ``New chemical entity'' exclusivity and ``clinical
studies'' exclusivity under section 505(c)(3)(D)(ii)-(iv) and
505(j)(5)(D)(ii)-(iv) of the Act grant protection to innovative drugs
against competition from certain generic drugs and other drugs for
which the sponsor did not do the supporting studies. However, these two
forms of exclusivity do not protect against competition from a drug
whose sponsor has conducted all the studies necessary to gain approval
of its product, even though this product may be directly competitive to
the product with exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity, on the other
hand, protects the drug with the exclusivity from competition from the
same drug for the same indication produced by another sponsor,
regardless of whether the other sponsor may have conducted all the
studies necessary to obtain approval of the drug. The pediatric
exclusivity provisions passed as Section 111 of the FDA Modernization
Act of 1997 include an express limitation upon the number of times a
drug can benefit from the six month exclusivity period, but that
exclusivity can attach to multiple other exclusivity and patent
protections covering many drug products. There is no exclusivity
protection in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for devices.
GENERIC DRUGS
Over the next five years, brand drugs with approximately $21.6
million in annual sales will come off patent, providing opportunities
for substantial health care cost savings through the alternate use of
generic drugs. However, it is reported that the median approval time
for generic drugs in fiscal year 1999 was 17.3 months.
Question. What levels of savings in the costs of prescription drugs
would be realized if approval times were shortened from the 17.3 month
time frame to the statutory requirement of six months?
Answer. There would be some cost savings, but generic applications
for most large selling drugs are submitted to FDA well before the date
of patent expiration for the innovator drugs. As a result, in recent
years FDA review time has not significantly delayed the availability of
most generic products.
Question. How much of FDA's fiscal year 2000 budget will be
directed to the Office of Generic Drugs?
Answer. Approximately $13.6 million of fiscal year 2000 budget
proposed for the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research will be
allocated to the Office of Generic Drugs. These dollar and FTE figures
do not include overhead expenses such as legal, facilities and
telecommunications, personnel, budget development and execution,
executive communications, labor/management, EEO, and general management
oversight.
Question. How much of the fiscal year 2001 budget is proposed
specifically for the Office of Generic Drugs?
Answer. It is estimated that approximately $13.8 million of the
proposed budget for the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research will be
allocated to the Office of Generic Drugs in fiscal year 2001.
ANTIMICROBIAL PRODUCTS
I note that the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System
(NARMS) expanded its activities from funds derived from the Food Safety
Initiative during fiscal year 1999.
Question. Please provide information regarding specific activities
of NARMS.
Answer. The National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System--
NARMS, monitors the emergence and spread of resistance in enteric
bacteria and helps to ensure the continued safety and effectiveness of
veterinary antimicrobials. Under NARMS thousands of bacterial isolates
are tested for resistance to antimicrobials. NARMS will provide an
early warning to identifying resistance trends among bacteria. All data
from NARMS are made public for review by scientists or the public. With
the additional funds requested for NARMS in fiscal year 2001 we will
expand the geographical scope and capacity of NARMS by increasing the
number and sources of isolates of Campylobacter, Salmonella, and E.
coli from both human and animal sources. Additional veterinary sentinel
sites are also planned. Increasing the number and sources of these
foodborne pathogens will increase the likelihood of detection of
emerging resistance. Detecting the resistance early allows the
implementation of strategies to contain or mitigate the resistance
before it reaches public health concerns. These resources will also aid
in the Center for Veterinary Medicine's ability to establish and
implement monitoring thresholds for resistance development in food
animals to guide post-marketing regulatory activity.
In addition, new pathogens will be monitored by NARMS from both
animal and human isolates. Anticipated pathogens to be monitored
include Enterococcus and Shigella species. Also, we plan to enhance and
expand FDA support of current international efforts to develop a global
resistance database. The incidence of multi-country foodborne outbreaks
are increasing and the severity of foodborne disease originating in
foreign countries is increased by resistant foodborne pathogens.
Question. What specific health risks have been identified resulting
from the use of antimicrobial drugs in animals produced for human
consumption?
Answer. The specific human health risks identified with using
antimicrobial drugs in food animals is loss of efficacy of the drugs in
treating human disease. The FDA recently contracted with a quantitative
risk assessment expert to develop a model relating the prevalence of
fluoroquinolone resistant Campylobacter infections in humans associated
with the consumption of chicken to the prevalence of fluoroquinolone
resistant Campylobacter in chickens. The risk assessment showed that
fluoroquinolone use in chickens accounted for almost all of the
fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter in those persons who had not
traveled outside the United States or had taken a fluoroquinolone drug
prior to submission of a culture. This risk assessment estimated that
out of 122,078 people seeking care for a campylobacter enteric
infection from chickens, 58,450 persons would be treated with
antibiotic and of those, 4,682 would be resistant to fluoroquinolone
therapy.
Other human health risks due to antimicrobial use in food-animals
are the potential development of resistant organisms in the gut of
persons consuming an antimicrobial residue and an allergic reaction to
the residue. Unlike the fluoroquinolones, for which the major hazard
associated with their use in animals is the selection of resistant
foodborne pathogens, the major hazard associated with the use of
virginiamycin in food animals is the selection of resistant
enterococci. The presence of virginiamycin resistant enterococci is of
concern because a related antimicrobial, Synercid, was recently
approved for use in human medicine. Synercid will be used in humans to
treat enteroccal infections for which there are no other antimicrobial
therapies available. To assess the risk associated with the continued
use of virginiamycin in animal agriculture, a quantitative risk
assessment framework is needed. This risk assessment framework will
quantify the probability, uncertainty and variability associated with
several factors. The agency will also be considering whether additional
risk assessments should be conducted on other antimicrobial and
foodborne pathogen combinations.
SINGLE USE MEDICAL DEVICES
Concerns have been expressed about the safety of reprocessed single
use medical devices.
Question. Please provide your analysis on the safety of these
devices including findings of any investigations you may have pursued
relating to injuries caused by such devices.
Answer. In the past three years, FDA has received approximately 245
adverse event reports from manufacturers that involved the reuse of
devices labeled for single use including 7 deaths; 72 injuries; 147
malfunctions, and 19 other. During that same time period, FDA received
approximately 300,000 device adverse event reports, summary reports,
and supplements. The 245 reports spanned approximately 70 different
types of devices. An analysis of the events did not reveal any patterns
of failures with the reuse of single-use devices--SUDs--that were
different from patterns noted with the initial use of SUDs.
It is important to note that the Medical Device Reports--MDRs--are
unlikely to represent an accurate assessment of failure rates for any
medical device, regardless of whether they are single-use or non-
disposable products, because of incomplete reports and under-reporting.
The SUDs, however, pose a greater challenge because there may be
increased under-reporting of these events when end-users recognize that
the failed device involved a reused device labeled for single use. In
addition, infections that may have resulted from an improperly
reprocessed SUD may be difficult to trace to a reused device.
Question. Please compare the current regulatory requirements
related to marketing of reprocessed single use medical devices with
similar requirements for ``new'' devices.
Answer. To date, FDA has enforced existing premarket submission
requirements against original manufacturers, but not third party
reprocessors or hospitals that reprocess single use devices. FDA has
enforced other requirements of the Act, such as good manufacturing
practice and adverse event reporting requirements, against third party
reprocessors. FDA has not enforced Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
requirements against hospitals that reprocess single use devices. We
FDA recently issued draft guidance entitled Enforcement Priorities for
Single-Use Devices Reprocessed by Third Parties and Hospitals,
proposing to enforce the premarket submission requirements and all of
the other requirements of the act against third party reprocessors and
hospitals.
Question. What, if any, additional regulatory requirements
regarding reprocessed single use medical devices would you recommend?
Answer. Under the proposed strategy outlined in FDA's enforcement
guidance, the agency would enforce the same regulatory requirements
that are applicable to a new device to reprocessed devices labeled for
single use, regardless of whether the reprocessor was a third-party or
a hospital. Additional regulatory requirements would not be required;
however, FDA's proposed strategy would phase in enforcement of existing
requirements over a period of 18 months.
Question. What effect would additional regulation of reprocessed
single use medical devices have on health care costs?
Answer. As I said earlier, FDA is not proposing to promulgate new
regulatory requirements regarding reprocessed single use medical
devices. The agency's strategy is to phase in uniform enforcement of
all current requirements for third-party reprocessors and hospitals,
including premarket requirements. At this time, FDA cannot determine
the economic effect of its proposed enforcement policy on the cost of
health care. However, any evaluation would need to consider the
expected reduction in the number and severity of adverse events as well
as any costs associated with FDA's phased in enforcement strategy.
DETROIT LABORATORY
Language was provided in the fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Act
regarding the Detroit, Michigan, lab and field office.
Question. Please provide an update on activities at these
locations.
Answer. I am happy to describe our efforts to relocate both the
Detroit District Office and Detroit Laboratory. As you may recall, the
current facility which houses both our laboratory and district office
is scheduled to be acquired and demolished by the City of Detroit as
part of a major downtown renovation project. We are proceeding in
accordance with congressional guidance, which in short prohibited any
geographical reassignment of the lab staff or reorganization of the
district. We are actively engaged in dialogue with several Michigan
State authorities and federal agencies in the area in an effort to
develop mutually beneficial arrangements to house the remaining Detroit
laboratory staff. Of particular interest to FDA at the moment, is the
strong possibility of entering into a partnership arrangement with
Wayne State University to co-locate our laboratory operations. Wayne
State is a part of the university system of Michigan, and currently has
state of the art facilities and equipment that would enhance our
current level of operation, and the potential exchange of expertise
between university scientists and FDA scientists would serve both
parties well. We are continuing to explore other possibilities with
other components within the State system, as well as with the Veterans
Administration. We are committed to identifying and securing suitable
accommodations in the immediate area to continue our inspectional
operations and to maintain viable laboratory support.
LOS ANGELES LABORATORY
The budget request includes $20 million for construction of the Los
Angeles Lab. I understand that if improvements are not made at that
location, FDA will be forced to transfer personnel to other FDA field
locations.
Question. What would be the costs of such transfers and how soon
would they occur?
Answer. The current lease for this facility has been extended twice
and will expire at the end of March 2000. A short term extension has
been negotiated which will allow for continued occupancy during
construction of a new facility, or an orderly closing of the existing
lab within three years.
Our experience with other field labs that have closed has been that
most laboratory staff have not willingly accepted directed
reassignments to gaining laboratories. Those staff not wanting to
relocate to a targeted laboratory may apply for laboratory analyst jobs
at other, more personally desirable locations; apply for other jobs
within the district to which they are currently assigned; resign
Federal service and accept positions in the private sector; retire if
they met eligibility requirements; or, be separated, with severance
pay, if they cannot retire and refuse a directed reassignment to a
laboratory in another part of the country.
As is FDA policy for all closing field laboratories, all impacted
laboratory staff in Los Angeles would be given a directed reassignment
to an equal position at another FDA field laboratory, with full rights
to relocation benefits for reimbursable expenses. The average cost for
an employee move is $35,000. Total staffing at the Los Angeles
Laboratory at Pico Boulevard is 76. If the facility were to be closed
with an estimated effective date of the end of fiscal year 2002, the
agency could expect approximately 20 employee transfers to other sites,
resulting in moving costs of approximately $700,000 over the next three
fiscal years.
If the Los Angeles Laboratory were to close, the greater cost to
FDA would be the loss of productivity and expertise that would
certainly occur over the next several years. We would expect a
significant number of experienced analysts to retire or accept other
positions in the Los Angeles area, either in the district or within the
private sector. Inexperienced replacement staff would need to be hired
and trained in other locations, causing delays in product analysis. Los
Angeles is one of the agency's largest field laboratories, analyzing 25
percent of FDA import sample workload nationally. Workload in this area
is increasing, and faster turnaround times for import sample analysis
is a stated priority of both Congress and the import community.
Question. Can an amount be provided in fiscal year 2001 less than
$20 million that would allow construction at the lab to proceed?
Answer. The budget request of $20 million is for the first phase of
a two phase project that totals $43.0 million. It is conceivable that
the construction documents could be modified to define a ``site-
foundation'' only project that would entail a first phase cost of $10.5
million. However, since this would delay the funding of a large portion
of the construction work for another year, partial funding would result
in the construction being completed over a longer duration. With the
construction marketing continuing to be very active and with increased
competition for skilled labor, the cost of construction may escalate.
ARKANSAS REGIONAL LABORATORY
Question. Please provide an update on construction activities of
the Arkansas Regional Lab.
Answer. I would be happy to provide that information for the
record.
[The information follows:]
Status of the Arkansas Regional Lab
The ARL facility project was initiated in fiscal year 1995 through
a $2.5 million appropriation for architectural and engineering design.
The firm Kling-Lindquist (KL), Philadelphia, PA, was selected. KL, in
consultation with FDA, developed an overall campus design comprising
both new and renovated space: (1) joint NCTR and ORA animal quarantine
facility--renovation of Building 62; (2) ORA's Arkansas Regional
Laboratory--new facility (Phases I & II); (3) Building 50 renovation--3
floors of office space (Phase III); and, (4) common ORA/NCTR
administration and support area (Phase III).
The fiscal year 1996 appropriation included $3.8 million for an
animal quarantine facility and preparation of joint NCTR/ORA laboratory
space. This project has been completed. The fiscal year 1997
appropriation included $13.0 million for Phase I construction of the
ARL. Phase I began construction and provided the ARL building,
foundation, substructure, superstructure, exterior enclosure, and
roofing. Major building systems, such as fire protection, HVAC,
electrical and some site work, is included.
--The construction of the ARL project was awarded on September 26,
1997, to Charles N. White Construction Company (White) of
Clarksdale, Mississippi. White was given notice to proceed on
Phase I of the project on October 1, 1997.
The fiscal year 1998 appropriation included $14.55 million for
Phase II construction. Phase II continued the ARL project by completing
the building systems and providing some office and laboratory fit-out
in the ORA laboratory building.
--On December 24, 1997, White was given notice to proceed on a
portion of the Phase II construction.
FDA received reprogramming authority for up to $10.4 million for
Phase II of the ARL project to complete the office and laboratory fit-
out for the laboratory building.
--On February 27, 1998, White was given notice to proceed on the
remaining portion of Phase II to complete the office and
laboratory fit-out for the laboratory building.
A building dedication ceremony for Phases I & II, the laboratory
portion, was held on February 17, 2000.
Building 50 Renovation and Common Area, Phase III, status:
--The fiscal year 1999 appropriation included $3.0 million to begin
construction of a portion of Phase III. This first portion
included the exterior demolition, exterior structural work,
exterior masonry work, and some roofing repairs.
--On January 26, 1999, White was given notice to proceed on the first
portion of Phase II. This work has been completed.
--The fiscal year 2000 appropriation included another $3.0 million to
continue the construction of a portion of Phase III. This
portion of work includes exterior glass and glazing, roofing,
an elevator, and some of the site work and utilities.
--On February 2, 2000, White was given notice to proceed on the this
portion of Phase III.
--In fiscal year 2001, FDA requested $3.0 million to continue work on
Phase III. Therefore, approximately $7.2 million in additional
funding will be needed to complete Phase III. The $3.0 million
in the fiscal year 2001 budget request will be utilized to fund
an additional portion of the Phase III construction. This
portion will include work such as the majority of the HVAC and
plumbing infrastructure and related electrical system items
necessary for the operation of the installed HVAC systems.
Question. Please provide information regarding FDA field structure
consolidation as it relates to completion of the Arkansas Regional Lab
and please identify savings to be achieved by this action.
Answer. I would be happy to provide that information for the
record.
[The information follows:]
The original field lab consolidation plan called for six field
laboratories to be ultimately consolidated into the Arkansas Regional
Laboratory. They are as follows, including dates of closure:
Chicago........................................................... 1997
Minneapolis....................................................... 2000
Detroit........................................................... 2000
Dallas............................................................ 2000
Denver............................................................ 2010
Kansas City....................................................... 2014
As leases have or will expire for these facilities, the agency will
negotiate new leases for office space only, as opposed to full
replacement space to include new laboratories. FDA will thus realize
considerable savings on an annual basis in the form of ``avoided rent''
for replacement of expensive, state-of-the-art lab space in the above
locations.
The current estimated differences in annual rent for office only
versus office and lab space for each of these locations is presented
below, and does not include Denver or Kansas City due to the lengthy
time before planned closing of those facilities. Savings to FDA will
increase again starting in 2010 with the additional closures of Denver,
and then Kansas City in 2014.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Est savings
Annual cost Annual cost with
Facility for lab for lab consolidation
consolidation replacement at ARL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHICAGO (Lab only).............................................. .............. 574 574
MINNEAPOLIS..................................................... 664 2,500 1,836
DETROIT......................................................... 783 1,900 1,117
DALLAS.......................................................... 132 1,700 1,568
ARKANSAS REG LAB \1\............................................ 3,650 .............. -3,650
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................................... 5,229 6,674 1,445
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The annual cost for ARL was calculated based on a 20 year amortization of constructions costs plus $1
million per year in operating costs.
USER FEES
Question. Section 735 of Public Law 106-78, the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2000, requires the budget proposal for fiscal year
2001 to include information identifying savings in the event proposed
user fees are not authorized prior to the convening of a committee on
conference for the fiscal year 2001 appropriations act. The fiscal year
2001 budget request assumes revenues from the enactment of unauthorized
FDA user fees.
Accordingly, which FDA activities proposed for fiscal year 2001 do
you recommend for reduction in the event these user fees are not
authorized this year?
Answer. In the fiscal year 2001 budget, FDA has requested user fees
in the amount of $8.4 million for Direct Food Additive Petition review,
and $5.8 million for the premarket review in the Medical Device
program. These two proposed user fees are additive in nature, allowing
for increased performance on the part of FDA, once enacted. Were these
user fees not to be approved, the activities highlighted as being
accomplished with the user fee funds would not be accomplished. For
example, FDA would not be able to provide enhanced training to support
scientific expertise of reviewers that need to keep pace with
increasingly complex products; nor would there be time for the agency
to be ready to engage in pre-filing consultations with petitioners.
Medical device manufacturers would continue to face a significant
financial disincentive to use the third party review option created by
the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act, or FDAMA.
FDA also requested $5.3 million in new user fees for the food
export certification program. Collection of user fees for export
certificates for human drugs, animal drugs and devices is authorized by
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This does not cover
collection of user fees for export certificates for foods. FDA must
divert significant resources from food safety work to address what in
essence is an economic trade matter for these certificates. Were this
user fee not authorized this year, FDA would continue to expend
resources for the food export certificates, with no means to recoup the
costs incurred as a result of inspections, laboratory analyses and
administrative costs associated with issuance of food export
certificates.
Question. Can you give us some insight into your thinking on this
label, and whether you are considering any changes to what you proposed
last year?
Answer. From the results of previous focus group research on label
statements used to alert consumers to potential hazards in foods--
namely, iron supplements and fresh and unprocessed fruit and vegetable
juice warning statements, FDA determined that certain types of
information was required to adequately inform consumers about the
potential risks associated with the food. In particular, our focus
group research indicated that for consumers to understand and modify
their behavior with regard to a particular food there needed to be an
information statement explaining why there was a risk associated with
the food. This information statement was especially important if the
information was considered new information. In crafting the proposed
safe handling instructions for eggs, FDA considered that consumers
needed to be given information on why the product presented a risk.
Accordingly, FDA proposed to include a sentence in the statement that
informed the consumer that the eggs may contain harmful bacteria known
to cause serious illness in children, the elderly, and persons with
weakened immune systems. FDA included these groups because they are
generally at higher risk of serious illness from food borne pathogens
than the rest of the population.
FDA received several comments objecting to the introductory
sentence in the proposed safe handling instructions. We also received
comments offering alternative wording for the safe handling
instructions, as well as those asserting that the presence of
Salmonella in eggs was not new information. We have fully considered
all of the comments. We have been persuaded by those comments to
reconsider the wording of the informational component of the safe
handling instruction and will likely revise the safe handling
instructions in a way that addresses both the concerns raised by
industry and the need to adequately inform consumers about the risk
associated with eggs.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TOM HARKIN
Question. Commissioner Henney, I was disturbed to read a recent
report that DES had been found in a shipment of meat to Europe.
Incidences such as this certainly don't help resolve our trade
difficulties with the EU. Can you tell me what role FDA has in
resolving incidences such as the DES incident, and what you have been
doing to help address issues related to residues in meat?
Answer. In July 1999, Switzerland reported to the United States
that it had found trace levels of diethylstilbestrol--DES--in two
samples of U.S. beef. On July 13, the Swiss government published a
press release that announced its DES findings in U.S. beef. The press
release stated that the amounts detected were at low levels and did not
pose an acute health threat.
FDA takes misuse of compounds of public health significance like
DES, very seriously. The agency's Center for Veterinary Medicine--CVM--
which has the responsibility to investigate the misuse of drugs in food
animals, has carried out an intensive investigation during the past
eight months. FDA inspectors have conducted on-farm investigations of
animal producers and feedlots delivering animals to the establishment
in question. They have investigated bulk drug re-packers, compounding
pharmacies, and other points at which illegal diversions of drugs might
be uncovered. FDA has thus far found absolutely no evidence of the
diversion of DES for use in food animals.
In the meantime, we have learned that the Swiss government sent the
two positive samples to a European Union--EU--reference laboratory for
re-confirmation. The October 14, 1999 report from the EU reference
laboratory states that the conclusion of the analyses does not confirm
the presence of DES in the samples submitted for analysis. FDA
scientists conclude that some type of laboratory contamination may have
led to false positive samples.
In response to your question regarding FDA's role in resolving
incidences such as the DES case, the FDA establishes tolerances for
residues of animal drugs in edible tissues. Food-producing animals,
even though not in their final, edible form, have been held to be food
under a variety of statutes. Thus, live animals raised for food are
``food'' under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
CVM has implemented a compliance program to address consumer
exposure to drug residues in the edible tissues of food animals. The
Center assigns more Field resources to this program than to any other
that it oversees. The immediate goal of this program is to prevent
future residue violations through on-farm educational efforts, and/or
enforcement activity as warranted. To this end FDA has developed
cooperative agreements with 32 states to conduct educational follow-ups
of first-time violators. State participation is an integral element of
the U.S. residue reduction effort. The compliance program instructs the
FDA District Offices to conduct onsite investigations whenever the Food
Safety and Inspection Service--FSIS--reports finding a residue of a
drug prohibited from food-animal use such as DES. FDA investigations
are also required for all high-level residues which may pose a
toxicological concern, as well residues from drugs not approved for
food animal use. FDA also conducts investigations of any residue from
drugs prohibited from extra-label use under the Animal Medicinal Drug
Use Clarification Act of 1995. Additionally, FDA Districts are
instructed to follow up on all repeat violators. A repeat violator is
defined as an individual who sells a slaughter animal whose carcass is
found to contain a violative concentration of a drug, pesticide, or
environmental contaminant within a 12-month period after receiving the
FSIS Violation Notification Letter. Complete instructions for these
investigations are included in Compliance Program 7371.006. Last year
FDA conducted approximately 485 investigations of illegal residues and
the States an additional 1,000 on-farm visits in response to FSIS-
reported tissue residue violations.
Question. FDA announced early in 1999 its intention to give
``priority'' to reviews of food additive petitions with food safety
benefits. Several food irradiation petitions are pending at FDA,
including one that would allow the use of irradiation on hot dogs or
luncheon meats, and could be used to reduce the incidence of Listeria.
The Conference Report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2000 Agriculture
Appropriations bill directed FDA to propose and finalize a rule on this
petition by August 2000. Do you intend to meet this deadline? How
quickly does FDA intend to act on other pending irradiation petitions?
How can we be assured they won't meet the same fate as red meat
irradiation that FDA and USDA more than five years to complete? When
will we see faster reviews resulting from the more than $5 million in
additional funds the Congress provided FDA in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. First, FDA does not intend to propose a rule because under
the food additive petition process, a proposal is not required. Rather,
the filing notice, which was published in the Federal Register on
January 5, 2000, meets the legal requirement of giving notice that a
rule under consideration.
In the priorities established for food safety in fiscal year 2000,
FDA has established a goal of completing the safety evaluation for 80
to 90 percent of expedited review petitions within one year of filing.
FDA filed the petition that includes hot dogs and luncheon meats on
October 27, 1999. This is the actual filing that preceded the notice in
the Federal Register. Although we cannot comment on issuing a rule
until we complete the safety evaluation and verify whether data in the
petition will support a final rule, we are committed to completing that
evaluation within a year of filing. FDA expects to complete evaluations
of all other pending irradiation petitions within the same time frame.
With regard to the petition for red meat irradiation that FDA
approved in December 1997, FDA received this petition at a time when
there was a backlog of several petitions and before a priority was
being placed on petitions intended to significantly reduce pathogens.
Additionally, USDA regulations for meat irradiation now incorporate FDA
regulations for the use of radiation which means that USDA will not be
required to issue its own regulation to allow irradiation of meat after
FDA issues such a regulation.
The time to complete reviews on food and color additives has been
improving in recent years. FDA is committed to making further
significant improvements as we hire and train additional scientists for
review. We have already begun the process of bringing more reviewers on
board and improving the training for current staff. In the interim as
this process is ongoing, FDA is also using some of the newly
appropriated resources to arrange for review help through the use of
contractors. The most immediate results will be seen in the petitions
that qualify for expedited review due to pathogen reduction described.
Question. FDA visits foreign countries to audit the safety of food
produced in these countries for export to the United States. Please
indicate for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999: (a) each foreign
country for which such an audit was conducted, (b) the particular food
product that was the subject of the audit, and (c) the approximate
dates of each such audit. Are there written reports prepared on the
results of each such foreign audit? If so, are these reports available
to the public? If they are not available to the public, why not? Was
the FDA ever denied access to a foreign country in which it wanted to
conduct an audit in fiscal year 1998 or fiscal year 1999? If so, please
briefly describe the circumstances.
Answer. An Establishment Inspection Report is prepared for each
inspection of a firm. Reports are also prepared from audits conducted
in response to foodborne outbreaks in other countries. These reports
can be obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. When an
inspection results in a regulatory action such as issuance of a Warning
Letter or the firm placed on Detention with Physical Examination and
added to an Import Alert, these documents are available on the agency's
internet Website, at www.fda.gov.
Although in the past Mexico has a very positive record of
cooperation with FDA, FDA was denied access to Mexico once in 1999 in
follow-up to a foodborne outbreak associated with the consumption of
unpasteurized orange juice in the United States. The Mexican Ministry
of Health would not allow FDA investigators to visit the processor or
orchards implicated in the outbreak. The Ministry of Health did its own
evaluation and provided FDA with information. We would like to note
that Mexico participates in a number of cooperative efforts with the
U.S. and collaborative exchanges are underway in the areas of research
and outbreaks. Additionally, in September 1999, Mexico hosted a food
safety practices symposium for more than 4,000 government officials in
Mexico and Central America.
I would be happy to provide two tables that reflects the import
information you are requesting, for the record.
[The information follows.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country (number of firms) Product Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 1998 Foreign Foods
Inspections/Audits
Thailand (13).................. Low Acid Canned 1/98 thru 8/98
Food.
Spain (5)...................... Low Acid Canned 1/98 thru 2/98
Food.
Germany (3).................... Low Acid Canned 2/98 thru 4/98
Food.
China (14)..................... Low Acid Canned 3/98 thru 4/98
Food.
Philippines (1)................ Low Acid Canned 2/98
Food.
Indonesia (1).................. Low Acid Canned 2/98
Food.
Mexico......................... Parsley.......... 10/98
Guatemala...................... Fresh Raspberries 3/98, 6/98, 11/98
Honduras....................... Country 8/98
Evaluation.
Fiscal Year 1999 Foreign
Inspections/Audits
Mexico (6)..................... Cheese........... 2/99 thru 8/99
France (5)..................... Cheese........... 2/99 thru 8/99
Canada (1)..................... Cheese........... 2/99 thru 8/99
Germany (1)................... Cheese........... 2/99 thru 8/99
El Salvador (1)................ Cheese........... 2/99 thru 8/99
Singapore (1).................. Seafood.......... 6/99
Ecuador (11)................... Seafood.......... 7/99
Taiwan (9)..................... Seafood.......... 5/99
Philippines (9)................ Seafood.......... 4/99
Vietnam (9).................... Low Acid Canned 4/99
Food.
Equador (5).................... Low Acid Canned 6/99 thru 7/99
Food.
Brazil (6)..................... Low Acid Canned 8/99
Food.
Canada (9)..................... Low Acid Canned 3/99 thru 7/99
Food.
Malaysia....................... Low Acid Canned 8/99
Food.
Philippines.................... Low Acid Canned 5/99 thru 6/99
Food.
India.......................... Low Acid Canned 6/99 thru 8/99
Food.
Vietnam........................ Low Acid Canned 4/99
Food.
Mexico......................... Basil............ 12/99
Green onions..... 3/99
Parsley.......... 2/99
Celery/Lettuce... 7/99
Costa Rica..................... Cilantro......... 7/99
Country 7/99
Evaluation.
Guatemala...................... Raspberries...... 3/99
Mamey............ 4/99
Post-Hurricane 7/99
Mitch Food
Safety
Assessment.
Honduras....................... Post-Hurricane 7/99
Mitch Food
Safety
Assessment.
Trinidad and Tobago............ Country
Evaluation
El Salvador.................... Post-Hurricane 7/99
Mitch Food
Safety
Assessment.
Nicaragua...................... Post-Hurricane 7/99
Mitch Food
Safety
Assessment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN
I know that we all recognize the enormous public health
contributions that vaccines have made in preventing a wide range of
adult and childhood diseases. It is my understanding that the pace of
development of new vaccines and vaccine combinations is quite dramatic.
I am concerned that FDA may not have sufficient resources to give
appropriate priority to the review of new vaccines that have a
demonstrable public health benefit.
Can you provide me and the Subcommittee with data from your Office
of Vaccine Research and Review (OVRR) in response to the following
questions:
Question. For each of the past five years, what has been the
funding and staffing at the OVRR?
Answer. We are happy to provide a table showing the OVRR funding
and staffing for each of the past five years.
[The information follows:]
OFFICE OF VACCINE RESEARCH AND REVIEW FUNDING AND STAFFING
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years
Resource ----------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OVRR funding......................... 18.6 18.5 18.7 18.4 19.3
FTE.................................. 171 185 179 166 177
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What is your proposed fiscal year 2001 request for
funding and staffing at the OVRR?
Answer. The proposed fiscal year 2001 funding level for OVRR is
$24.2 million based upon the President's budget request.
Question. For each of the past five years, please break down the
resources of the OVRR between new vaccine application review activities
and other activities. Please describe those other activities.
Answer. We are happy to provide a table showing the break down of
OVRR resources between new vaccine application review activities and
other activities for each of the past five years. New vaccine
application review activities include: IND and license application
review; lot-release processing and testing; and assay validation. Other
activities include: mission-related product research; post-approval
surveillance and enforcement activities; and miscellaneous other
activities including training/professional development; processing
information requests, and international harmonization activities.
As shown below, while we have been able to increase our resources
related to application review, much of which is funded through user-
fees, it has been at the expense of critical non-review activities,
funded entirely through appropriations, that assure the expeditious
review of future vaccines and the continued safety and effectiveness of
vaccines already on the market.
[The information follows:]
OFFICE OF VACCINE RESEARCH AND REVIEW FTE DISTRIBUTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years
Activity ---------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Review.............. 75.6 83.9 85.9 90.3 98.2
Other........................... 95.4 100.8 93.5 75.3 78.3
---------------------------------------
Total..................... 171.0 184.7 179.4 165.6 176.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. For each of the past five years, please provide the
number of Biological License Applications (BLA) and Investigation New
Drug Exemptions (IND) received for new vaccines.
Answer. We are happy to provide a table showing the number of OVRR
application receipts for each of the past five years.
[The information follows:]
OFFICE OF VACCINE RESEARCH AND REVIEW VACCINE APPLICATION RECEIPTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years
Application ----------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INDs \1\............................. 70 63 65 52 49
BLAs \1\............................. 6 4 4 3 4
BLA Supplements...................... 62 30 60 77 116
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note: INDs include commercial and non-commercial INDs. BLAs include:
product license applications (PLAs), establishment license
applications (ELAs), and biological license applications (BLAs).
Question. For each of the past five years, please provide the
average review times for BLAs and INDs for vaccines.
Answer. INDs become effective automatically after 30 days unless
the FDA imposes a clinical hold on the clinical trials. We are happy to
provide a table showing the average BLA review times for each of the
past five years. License application review time is the time to review
completion for applications during the respective fiscal year. License
applications may undergo several review cycles, in which an FDA action
is taken and the sponsor responds, before approval.
[The information follows:]
OFFICE OF VACCINE RESEARCH AND REVIEW MEDIAN VACCINE LICENSE APPLICATION
REVIEW TIME
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years
---------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Median BLA Review Time (months). 26.84 8.83 16.29 34.00 15.19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What information does FDA have about future vaccine
development and the number of INDs and BLAs for new vaccine products
this year and in the future?
Answer. A 1998 survey by the Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) found 350 new biotechnology medicines
in development and 140 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies
testing biotechnology products. Among the 350 new biotechnology
medicines in development , 77 are vaccines. They include vaccines
either to prevent or treat HIV infection, AIDS, colorectal, pancreatic,
breast, lung, colon and prostate cancers, multiple sclerosis, and
stroke. Senator Richard J. Durbin
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN
CODEX
Question. The Codex Alimentarius Commission (``Codex'') is an
international organization that seeks to set food safety standards that
are then used by the World Trade Organization to determine whether a
national food safety standard is a ``trade barrier.'' Please indicate
the amount spent by FDA in fiscal year 1999 in direct support of Codex,
showing separately how much of the fiscal year 1999 amount is for
travel.
Answer. The total amount spent by FDA in fiscal year 1999 in
support of Codex activities was $1.4 million. This includes $1.3
million in salaries and support for approximately 12 FTE, and $100,000
for travel.
Question. FDA is part of the Codex Policy Committee, which is
chaired by the Under Secretary for Food Safety of USDA and contains
senior policy members from HHS, State, Commerce, USTR, and other parts
of USDA. In June 1999, the U.S. acquiesced in four final decisions by
Codex that provide less protection to U.S. consumers than current U.S.
requirements: (a) international residue levels for methyl parathion and
other pesticides even though in August 1999 the EPA banned methyl
parathion for fruits and vegetables because of its potential adverse
effects on children; (b) an international standard for natural mineral
waters that permits higher levels of lead and other contaminants than
the FDA now allows; (c) an international standard that does not require
pasteurization of dairy products, as is now generally required by the
FDA; and (d) an international standard for the labeling of a composite
ingredient in prepackaged foods that permits it to be listed by a
standardized name without declaring all its component ingredients if it
is less than 5 percent of the food, even though the FDA now requires
these components to always be listed in order to protect consumers who
suffer from hypersensitivities. Please explain why the U.S. did not
formally object last year to the approval of each of these four Codex
standards?
Answer. Codex is the reference international organization for food
safety standards under the World Trade Organization--or WTO, Agreement
on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures--the SPS Agreement. While the
SPS Agreement requires countries to base their food safety measures on
Codex standards and guidelines unless they can scientifically justify a
more stringent standard, there is no requirement under the WTO Trade
Agreements for countries to adopt Codex standards. Codex standards
remain voluntary. Additionally, under the SPS Agreement, counties are
free to select their own level of public health protection.
While Codex maintains a provision for voting on standards--with
each country, including the United States, having one vote--Codex
operates on the basis of consensus. The United States works extensively
within the Codex System to help assure that the U.S. position is well
known, well supported and is the option selected by Codex. However,
there is no assurance, under either the voting or consensus process,
that the United States position on any given Codex standard or
guideline will become the final Codex decision.
I would be happy to provide for the record details of certain CODEX
standards.
[The information follows:]
SELECTED CODEX STANDARDS
International levels for methyl parathion.--At the time the Codex
Alimentarius Commission adopted the standard for this compound in June
of 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency had made no decision on
canceling this compound--the voluntary cancellation notification was
published in October, 1999. Therefore, there was no reason for the U.S.
to object to the adoption of the Codex standard at the June 1999
Commission meeting.
International standard for natural mineral waters.--The United
States was very much aware that the standard permitted higher levels of
lead and other contaminants than FDA currently allows. During the
consideration of this standard in the Committee on Natural Mineral
Waters and in the Commission, the U.S. and other countries made strong
objection. This standard was the result of a vote in the Commission;
the United States position was not upheld.
International standard for milk products not requiring
pasteurization.--At no time did the United States adopt a position or
strategy that would lower U.S. public health levels for milk or dairy
products. For several years, the U.S. worked strenuously to ensure that
language in Codex food hygiene codes and dairy product standards codes
did not result in default language that would make it difficult for the
United States to prevent the importation of raw milk or dairy products
containing raw milk. This effort was a top priority of the United
States. The U.S. was instrumental in helping to craft language for
Codex dairy product standards that permitted maintenance of the high
U.S. public health standards for milk and milk products while at the
same time allowing Codex to move forward with the adoption of Codex
dairy product standards. This language involved the insertion of a
specific provision into Codex dairy product standards, that states:
``From raw material production to the point of consumption, the
products covered by this standard should be subject to a combination of
control measures, which may include, for example, pasteurization, and
these should be shown to achieve the appropriate level of public health
protection.'' This language permits countries--including the U.S. to
allow entry of dairy products only if they meet the country's level of
public health protection, while at the same time not hindering a
country's ability to produce dairy products in any manner they see fit.
This is a classic example of how U.S. public health officials worked
within an international forum to arrive at a solution that allowed the
U.S. to maintain its high public health standards while also achieving
updated dairy product standards that greatly assist the U.S. dairy
industry in their international trade effort.
International labeling standard for composite food ingredients.--
While the 5 percent cut off level for listing composite ingredients is
less restrictive than current U.S. regulations that require full
disclosure of most ingredients, the value is substantially better than
the previous figure of 25 percent, that the 5 percent figure replaced.
The 5 percent figure is also coupled with a requirement that
ingredients that are food allergens be fully disclosed. This new Codex
labeling requirement is far more stringent than its predecessor. While
the U.S. would have preferred a more stringent standard, and worked
towards that end, the U.S. position was not supported by many other
countries within the Codex commission. The compromise solution obtained
was a distinct improvement over the earlier standard and, coupled with
the food allergen mandatory disclosure, was the best solution that
could be expected in a forum in which the U.S. held the minority view.
IMPORTED FOOD
Question. FDA visits foreign countries to audit the safety of food
produced in these countries for export in the U.S. Please indicate for
fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 each foreign country for which
such an audit was conducted, the particular food that was the subject
of the audit, and the approximate dates of each such audit?
Answer. I would be happy to provide that information for the
record.
[The information follows:]
FDA'S FISCAL YEAR 1998 AND FISCAL YEAR 1999 FOREIGN INSPECTIONS/AUDITS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country (number of firms) Product Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China (14)..................... Low Acid Canned 3/98 thru 4/98
Food.
Thailand (13).................. Low Acid Canned 1/98 thru 8/98
Food.
Spain (5)...................... Low Acid Canned 1/98 thru 2/98
Food.
Germany ( 3)................... Low Acid Canned 2/98 thru 4/98
Food.
Philippines (1)................ Low Acid Canned 2/98
Food.
Indonesia (1).................. Low Acid Canned 2/98
Food.
Mexico......................... Parsley.......... 10/98
Guatemala...................... Fresh Raspberries 3/98, 6/98, 11/98
Honduras....................... Country 8/98
Evaluation.
Ecuador (11)................... Seafood.......... 7/99
Canada (9)..................... Low Acid Canned 3/99 thru 7/99
Food.
Philippines (9)................ Seafood.......... 4/99
Taiwan (9)..................... Seafood.......... 5/99
Vietnam (9).................... Low Acid Canned 4/99
Food.
Brazil (6)..................... Low Acid Canned 8/99
Food.
Mexico (6)..................... Cheese........... 2/99 thru 8/99
Equador (5).................... Low Acid Canned 6/99 thru 7/99
Food.
France (5)..................... Cheese........... 2/99 thru 8/99
Canada (1)..................... Cheese........... 2/99 thru 8/99
El Salvador (1)................ Cheese........... 2/99 thru 8/99
Germany (1).................... Cheese........... 2/99 thru 8/99
Singapore (1).................. Seafood.......... 6/99
Costa Rica..................... Cilantro......... 7/99
Country 7/99
Evaluation.
El Salvador.................... Post-Hurricane 7/99
Mitch Food
Safety
Assessment.
Guatemala...................... Raspberries...... 3/99
Mamey............ 4/99
Post-Hurricane 7/99
Mitch Food
Safety
Assessment.
Honduras....................... Post-Hurricane 7/99
Mitch Food
Safety
Assessment.
India.......................... Low Acid Canned 6/99 thru 8/99
Food.
Malaysia....................... Low Acid Canned 8/99
Food.
Mexico......................... Basil............ 12/99
Green onions..... 3/99
Parsley.......... 2/99
Celery/Lettuce... 7/99
Nicaragua...................... Post-Hurricane 7/99
Mitch Food
Safety
Assessment.
Philippines.................... Low Acid Canned 5/99 thru 6/99
Food.
Trinidad and Tobago............ Country
Evaluation
Vietnam Low Acid Canned 4/99
Food.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTED FOOD
Question. Was the FDA ever denied access to a foreign country in
which it wanted to conduct an audit in fiscal year 1998 or fiscal year
1999? If so, please briefly describe the circumstances.
Answer. Although in the past Mexico has a very positive record of
cooperation with FDA, FDA was denied access to Mexico once in 1999 in
follow-up to a foodborne outbreak associated with the consumption of
unpasteurized orange juice in the United States. The Mexican Ministry
of Health would not allow FDA investigators to visit the processor or
orchards implicated in the outbreak. The Ministry of Health did its own
evaluation and provided FDA with information.
We would like to note that Mexico participates in a number of
cooperative efforts with the U.S. and collaborative exchanges are
underway in the areas of research and outbreaks. Additionally, in
September 1999, Mexico hosted a food safety practices symposium for
more than 4,000 government officials in Mexico and Central America.
Question. FDA inspects for safety a sample of imported food at the
U.S. border. Please indicate for fiscal year 1999 the rejection rate by
each major food product for each foreign country?
Answer. We will be happy to provide this information for the
record. In the table we provide, the data will represent the total
number of imported foods refused for entry into the United States by
major food product category. We use the terms ``rejection'' and
``refusal'' interchangeably.
[The information follows:]
SEAFOOD EQUIVALENCY
Question. Seafood has been subject to mandatory process control
systems, called HACCP, since December 1998. What percent of the
domestic seafood industry is currently in compliance with the HACCP
regulations? What percent of the imported seafood industry is currently
in compliance with the HACCP regulation? How is FDA using the $8
million that this committee appropriated for fiscal year 1998 to
improve inspection of the seafood industry?
Answer. I will be happy to provide this information for the record.
[The information follows:]
Domestic compliance.--As background, FDA's traditional regulatory
database captures data on the classification of inspections, for
purposes of regulatory follow-up. In this database, inspections are
categorized as:
--NAI--no action indicated, where there are essentially no
significant inspectional findings and no regulatory response
needed;
--VAI--voluntary action indicated, where there are some significant
inspectional findings, but they are not sufficient to warrant a
regulatory response; or
--OAI--official action indicated, where inspection findings warrant a
regulatory response (e.g., warning letter, seizure, injunction,
prosecution). For regulatory purposes, FDA has traditionally
considered firms that are classified as NAI or VAI as being in
compliance.
Approximately 5 percent of the 3,334 seafood HACCP inspections
conducted in 1999 were classified OAI for HACCP purposes, and these
firms were sent Warning Letters by FDA. These inspections constitute
those firms that exhibited significant violations and did not exhibit a
willingness to make prompt and appropriate corrections.
For the seafood HACCP program, FDA has created a separate database,
which is used for program evaluation and management purposes. The
database includes data on a wide range of very specific features of
processors' HACCP plans and implementation. A deficiency in any of
these areas counts as noncompliance under this grading system, even
though the firm may be doing well in all other aspects of its HACCP
system. ``Compliance,'' as defined by this database, is a rigorous
standard. In 1999, 55 percent of inspected firms were ``in compliance''
by this standard. This exceeded FDA's GPRA goal by 5 percent.
It should be noted that a significant percentage of firms that were
not in compliance by the latter standard did not receive warning
letters. As noted above, warning letters were reserved for firms that
were not showing good faith progress toward full compliance. The
overwhelming majority of firms are now either in full compliance or
demonstrating good progress towards it. For that reason, we expect to
see significant improvement this year.
Foreign compliance.--Over half of all seafood consumed in the
United States is imported from a total of about 135 countries. A number
of these countries have advanced regulatory systems for seafood while
others do not. There are literally tens of thousands of foreign
processors that export to the U.S. Their products are therefore subject
to U.S. requirements. FDA's traditional strategy for examining imports
has been physical examination of a small percentage of products at
ports-of-entry. The examination is primarily directed toward
determining whether the product at the port contains substances that
would cause it to be adulterated under U.S. law. This examination would
not directly reveal whether the products were produced under HACCP
controls in the country of origin.
Consequently, FDA has developed three new strategies to augment the
port-of-entry examination process. These strategies should eventually
enable us to determine an overall compliance rate for foreign HACCP.
The first strategy is a new requirement on U.S. importers that they
take ``affirmative steps'' to ensure that seafood products they are
importing have been processed in accordance with U.S. requirements.
Affirmative steps may be basic, threshold indicators of compliance,
such as obtaining copies of the foreign processors' HACCP plans and
records. Importers are not expected to be surrogate regulatory
agencies. Nonetheless, the ``affirmative steps'' requirement is novel
and, as anticipated, will take some time to be fully understood and
implemented by the entire importing community.
The second strategy involves a significant increase in foreign
regulatory inspections by FDA inspectors, primarily directed toward
developing countries that are major exporters of seafood. The findings
from those inspections generally parallel those for domestic
inspections. Most processors are implementing HACCP but have not
perfected it yet. For that reason, education--both for the industry and
the local regulatory agencies--is a major component of these inspection
visits.
The third strategy involves equivalence determinations. The nature
of equivalence is such that it is expected ultimately to involve
countries with advanced regulatory systems.
Improving inspections.--To provide you with a response in the
shortest possible time, we are submitting the following materials that
FDA has used to brief congressional staff on the seafood HACCP program.
Last year, 85 percent of establishments in FDA's domestic inventory
were inspected, targeted toward firms with problems reported during the
previous inspection.
Question. The U.S. and Canada are now discussing an equivalency
agreement on seafood imports. Are the approved levels for food and
color additives permitted in seafood identical for Canada and the U.S.?
If not, please list the approved levels for Canada and the U.S. for
those food and color additives in seafood where the levels are not
identical?
Answer. There are literally thousands of additives permitted in
food in each country. One aspect of an equivalence determination is to
review additives for major differences in approved uses and to assess
the significance of those differences. One feature of this evaluation
is to screen the additives for those that actually are approved for,
and used in, seafood products being traded between the two countries.
FDA and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are in the process of
conducting such a screen. Where significant differences in approved
uses are found to exist in additives that are germane to seafood
products being traded between the two countries, those additives will
be publicly listed and assessed pursuant to U.S. obligations under the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act. FDA's preliminary assessment in this
process is that there are few differences.
Question. In the seafood equivalency negotiations with Canada, has
the Canadian government asserted that there are differences between the
low-acid canned seafood containers approved by the FDA and by the
Canadian government? If so, please summarize what these differences are
and indicate whether the FDA believes the Canadian requirements provide
more safety to consumers that the FDA's requirements.
Answer. With regard to low acid canned food containers, FDA and the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency are reviewing differences in the way
the agencies interpret the significance of certain types of can
defects. FDA's preliminary view is that the US and Canadian
interpretations yield the same level of protection for consumers.
Neither FDA or the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have come to any
conclusions about whether the issue affects equivalence. The issue
remains the subject of technical discussion between the two
governments.
USE OF HUMAN ANTIBIOTICS IN ANIMALS
Question. Last year, the Committee directed the Secretary of Health
and Human Services to implement the GAO's recommendation on the use of
human antibiotics in animals. What is the status of this
implementation?
Answer. FDA has taken several steps to determine the nature of the
problem associated with antibiotic resistance and will develop
appropriate regulatory responses as the information permits. FDA issued
Guidance for Industry Number 78, which addresses how the agency intends
to consider the potential human health impact of the microbial effects
associated with all uses of all classes of antimicrobial new animal
drugs intended for use in food-producing animals when approving such
drugs. FDA developed A Proposed Framework for Evaluating and Assuring
the Human Safety of the Microbial Effects of Antimicrobial New Animal
Drugs Intended for Use in Food-Producing Animals to attempt to promote
animal health while protecting the public health. It describes a
proposed regulatory approach, for antimicrobial products used in food
producing animals. The agency has conducted a model risk assessment,
plans for a second assessment, and initiates research to fill data
gaps. It also describes the policy direction the agency will take in
developing the new regulations.
The Center for Veterinary Medicine, CVM, is aggressively developing
risk assessment strategies to assist in evaluating the human health
effects from antimicrobial use in animals. The Center contracted with a
quantitative risk assessment expert to develop a quantitative risk
assessment model. The risk assessment intends to determine the
feasibility of estimating risk to human health from resistant foodborne
pathogens associated with the use of antimicrobial products in food-
producing animals. In early December the draft risk assessment model
was discussed at a public meeting. Scientific experts provided the
agency with their comments on the strengths, limitations, and data gaps
associated with the model. The agency will consider these comments, as
well as comments submitted to the public docket, in finalizing the
draft risk assessment.
The agency has also initiated planning for a second risk assessment
to look at the indirect transfer of resistance from animals to humans.
The use of antimicrobial products in food animals not only leads to the
development of resistance in foodborne pathogens, but also in all
bacterial associated with the animal. This risk assessment will
quantify the probability, uncertainty, and variability associated with
several factors. The agency initiated a feasibility study for this
specific assessment in the first quarter of 2000. After the feasibility
study is complete, the agency should be able to report on the timeframe
to complete a risk assessment on this issue, or, if sufficient data are
not currently available, identify the additional data that need to be
generated to support the risk assessment.
The National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System--NARMS,
which is a collaborative effort among the Food and Drug Administration,
the United States Department of Agriculture, and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, is a post-marketing activity to monitor
the emergence and spread of resistance in enteric bacteria and to help
ensure the continued safety and effectiveness of veterinary
antimicrobials. In order to determine risks to the public health from
the agricultural use of existing antimicrobials, CVM established and
continues to expand NARMS. In addition, the system may form the basis
for a regulatory tool to monitor the safety of new antimicrobial
products afer approval.
The Center has initiated its own intramural, extramural, and
collaborative research efforts to investigate factors associated with
development, dissemination, and persistence of bacterial antibiotic
resistance in both the animal production environment and food supply.
In late February, the agency sought input from experts via a public
workshop. The appropriate design for pre-approval studies to evaluate
the microbial effects of antimicrobial drugs intended for use in food-
producing animals was discussed. The agency is considering the need to
hold additional scientific workshops on risk management issues relating
to the regulation of antimicrobials use in food-producing animals.
Because the agency intends to solicit expert advice from the animal
health industry, the animal production industry, and consumer groups,
we are not able to develop a specific time frame for all activities
associated with the antibiotic resistance issue. However, FDA does not
intend to wait for all the answers before taking certain actions. As
opportunities develop to implement changes, we will take the necessary
steps.
NATIONAL CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY AND TECHNOLOGY
Question. For fiscal year 2000, the National Center for Food Safety
and Technology (NCFST) received a $3 million appropriation. This $3
million will continue the NCFST's progress in keeping our dinner tables
safe. Will the Administration continue to support food safety efforts
by supporting another $3 million appropriation for the National Center
for Food Safety and Technology in fiscal year 2001?
Answer. FDA is providing the National Center for Food Safety and
Technology with an increase of $1 million in fiscal year 2000 in FSI
funds to expand the collaborative research in food safety for a total
of $3 million. This includes the previous FSI base funding of $2
million.
In fiscal year 2001 FDA expects to continue to fund NCSFT at $3
million. FDA is not requesting new money in its fiscal year 2001 budget
for this purpose.
PRESIDENT'S EGG SAFETY PLAN
Question. CDC first identified internally contaminated eggs as a
source of Salmonella enteritidis infection in the late 1980's. Why has
it taken so long for FDA and USDA to develop an action plan to address
this public health problem? What steps could be taken to reduce the
government's reaction time to food safety problem in the future?
Answer. FDA and USDA have a history of cooperation on food safety
issues. FDA and USDA have supported the development of egg quality
assurance programs at the state level since the early 1990s. FDA has
responsibility for foodborne, including eggs, illness outbreak
tracebacks, whereby the agency identifies and limits the number of
contaminated eggs that reach the consumer. In addition, FDA and USDA
identified the proper handling, storage and cooking of eggs in FDA's
retail Food Code to reduce the potential hazard of Salmonella
Enteritidis, or SE, contamination. Although these interventions have
helped to reduce the problem of SE in eggs, they have not been as
effective as the agencies had hoped in addressing the problem.
While SE was recognized as a problem in internally contaminated
eggs several years ago, more recent scientific data have facilitated
FDA's ability to pursue other farm-to-table interventions to prevent or
reduce internal SE contamination of eggs. In June 1998, USDA and FDA
completed its SE in eggs risk assessment. The risk assessment modeled
the various pathways that eggs can become contaminated with SE and
analyzed the effectiveness of interventions at each potential pathway.
Using data generated in the risk assessment, both agencies have
developed proposed regulations requiring refrigeration and labeling of
eggs throughout distribution and storage. The risk assessment also
serves as the basis for the scope of the Egg Safety Action Plan, which
comprehensively addresses egg safety from farm to table. The Egg Safety
Action Plan includes plans for additional research to fill existing
data gaps in our understanding of SE in the environment and develop new
technologies and interventions to further reduce the hazard.
Although the development of the risk assessment on SE in eggs has
been beneficial in guiding the recent egg safety efforts of the
agencies, both FDA and USDA over the past ten years have made attempts
at addressing SE in eggs but have had legislation and or appropriations
transferred or removed from their respective programs. For example, FDA
drafted a proposal requiring refrigeration of eggs in the early 1990s
when authority for refrigeration during transport and storage was
legislatively given to USDA in the 1991 Egg Products Inspection Act
amendments. Special funding for a successful USDA-sponsored on-farm SE
risk reduction pilot project was established by Congress in 1992 but
then was eliminated from appropriations in 1995. Likewise, federal
authority in responding to foodborne illness through food tracebacks of
egg-related illnesses was transferred from USDA to FDA in October 1995.
The changes of authorities and lack of funding have contributed to
delay in providing a comprehensive program to improve public health .
With regard to future government response to new food safety
problems, the Food Safety Initiative funding received by FDA over the
past three years has provided a solid foundation in surveillance,
research , risk assessment, science-based inspection models, and
education that should significantly shorten the time needed for
effective government response. This will continue to improve as FDA's
scientific knowledge advances and our regulatory programs develop solid
track records. The recent data published by CDC through FoodNet
underscore the significant progress being made by our science-based
regulatory programs.
Question. While I believe the President's Plan on Egg Safety is a
very ambitious first step to eliminate disease due to SE-contaminated
eggs, I am puzzled as to why FDA and FSIS have divided up
responsibility for egg safety. Please explain why it is better to have
two agencies responsible--FDA for the producers and FSIS for the shell
egg packers and egg products processors--rather than for one agency to
have responsibility for egg safety from the farm to the retail level?
Answer. The President's Council on Food Safety identified one
responsible agency for each stage of the farm-to-table continuum to
consolidate oversight responsibilities, based on existing statutory
authority and to provide clear authority at each stage of the
continuum. The Council further recognized and identified
responsibilities based on the expertise and technical strengths of each
agency.
Question. The President's Plan on Egg Safety gives responsibility
for egg safety to several agencies: FDA develops standards for the
producer; FSIS develops standards for both shell egg packers and egg
products processors; and FDA and CDC conduct surveillance and
monitoring. What kinds of resources need to be in place in order to
ensure that monitoring from the farm to the retail level are being
equally enforced? Does FDA feel they can meet the goals of the
Presidents Plan on Egg Safety?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 FDA budget request includes $5.0
million to begin implementation of the Egg Safety Action Plan. The
funding will provide FDA funding to initiate an accelerated research
program; development of the nationwide, consistent egg safety standards
and programs; hire staff to manage the egg safety program; hire staff
to train and evaluate federal, state, and industry officials in
implementation of the standards. FDA intends to propose nationwide
consistent standards in fiscal year 2000, finalize these standards in
fiscal year 2001, and implement the standards through state contracts
in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. FDA anticipates that its fiscal year
2001 request for Egg Safety will provide sufficient resources to
conduct monitoring of egg safety at both the farm and retail level.
Fiscal year 2001 to 2003 funding and staffing will be critical to FDA's
ability meet the 50 percent reduction goal for Salmonella Enterditis
illness associated with eggs by 2005 and to meet the goals of the
President's Plan on Egg Safety.
SARA LEE LISTERIA OUTBREAK
Question. USDA has been criticized recently in the Washington Post
Magazine for taking too long to issue a recall notice in the Sara Lee
outbreak, an outbreak where 100 people became ill and 21 died from a
hazardous bacteria, Listeria, in ready-to-eat meat products. Consumer
groups have criticized USDA for failing to publicize the recall and
require the industry to test ready-to-eat meat products and plants for
Listeria. FDA foods, like soft cheeses and smoked fish, can also
contain deadly Listeria. What steps are you planning to take to control
this hazard in FDA-regulated foods? Does it make sense to have two
separate agencies regulating the same hazard in different foods?
Answer. FDA, with cooperation from USDA, is conducting a Risk
Assessment for Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods. We are
assessing risk management options in light of the outcome of the risk
assessment. Certain foods may need to be monitored more closely than
others. We are also developing appropriate risk communication messages
for the consumer, medical professional, and industry.
FDA and USDA each regulate different commodities and frequently the
same hazard may occur in different commodities. Each of the commodities
has intrinsic factors that may affect the types of hazards that may be
found. Also, the same hazard may behave differently in different
commodities. We do not see the organizational structure to be a barrier
in this regard.
DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS
Question. As you know, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education
Act (DSHEA) which passed in 1994 has significantly reduced FDA's
ability to ensure the safety of these products. Over half the U.S.
population now uses some type of dietary supplement ($12 billion per
year in spending). Dietary supplements are not subject to premarket
safety review or approval by FDA. These products do not currently have
good manufacturing standards or any uniformity in content of the
``active ingredient''. FDA can only intervene after ``serious adverse
events'' including death.
Answer. Yes, it is correct that, as a general matter, dietary
supplements are not subject to premarket safety review or approval by
FDA. FDA is currently developing good manufacturing practices
regulations to address the issue of uniform composition of dietary
supplement products.
Question. Does FDA believe that ``production standards'' or ``good
manufacturing standards'' for dietary supplements should be instituted?
If so does this require a legislative change or does FDA believe that
they have current authority to require such standards?
Answer. FDA believes that production standards or good
manufacturing standards for dietary supplements should be instituted.
The purpose of these standards would be to establish the minimum
current good manufacturing practices--CGMPs, that must be used in
activities associated with the manufacture of a dietary supplement,
including packaging, labeling, testing, quality control, releasing for
distribution, and holding. CGMPs are intended to ensure that
manufacturing practices will not result in an adulterated dietary
supplement, and thereby protects consumers from unsafe products. CGMPs
are intended to assist manufacturers in producing unadulterated dietary
supplements. CGMPs would allow consumers to have confidence that the
dietary supplements they purchase have the identity, strength, purity,
quality, or composition that they are represented to possess.
The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, also referred to
as DSHEA, is Public Law 103-417, and was signed into law on October 25,
1994. DSHEA, among other things, amended the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act by adding a section, to provide, in part, that the
Secretary may by regulation prescribe good manufacturing practices for
dietary supplements. DSHEA provides the Secretary the authority to
issue regulations on dietary supplement CGMPs. FDA plans to issue a
proposed regulation this year.
ORPHAN DRUGS
The FDA budget justification book states that the agency
anticipates a significant increase in overall interest in the Orphan
Product Research Grants program in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year
2001.
Question. Has the agency, therefore, increased the level of funding
for this vital program in their budget request?
Answer. The agency plans to maintain the level of funding for the
Orphan Product Grants program at $11.5 million in fiscal year 2001. In
addition to the grant funds, the agency spends over $2.3 million to
administer the Orphan Products program. The agency makes a considerable
effort to maintain spending in this area and must consider a proper
balance amongst all competing priorities within the Human Drugs
program, especially those programs with congressional mandates.
The Orphan Drug Act allows for the awarding of market exclusivity
for a given orphan indication for a pioneer orphan drug. If an
improvement in that orphan drug can be demonstrated, then a new orphan
status with its concomitant market exclusivity may be issued for the
improved orphan product. Under such a rationale, FDA judges the second
``improved'' drug to be dissimilar enough from the first version so as
to grant new exclusivity to the ``improved drug.'' Such was the case
for a product that helps multiple sclerosis patients. Betaseron was
first granted market exclusivity in 1993 and so its exclusivity will
expire in 2000. FDA judged a modified version of this drug known as
Avonex to be superior i.e. different from, Betaseron and granted Avonex
exclusivity which will run until 2003. Under such a model, if a generic
drug was developed that was identical to Betaseron, then it should be
able to go to market in 2000 rather than 2003. Such a drug Rabif, which
I believe is identical to Betaseron is seeking to come on the market in
2000. However, I understand that FDA has been considering a
modification of this process which may not be in line with
congressional intent with respect to the Orphan Drug exclusivity
provisions of the Orphan Drug Act. This modification would deny
multiple sclerosis patients access to a cheaper generic version of
Betaseron until the exclusivity not of Betaseron but of the improved
Avonex product expires in 2003.
Question. Would FDA agree that is in the interest of patients to
have access to generic drugs in a timely fashion?
Answer. We fully agree that the availability of generic drugs in a
timely fashion would be beneficial to patients.
Question. Would the FDA agree that if a drug is identical to the
unimproved orphan product that it should be treated as such and should
not be barred from the market until the improved product's exclusivity
expires ?
Answer. FDA agrees that if a sponsor can establish that its drug is
the same as a drug whose orphan exclusivity has expired, it may obtain
approval notwithstanding orphan exclusivity that still protects a drug
that is chemically the same, but clinically superior to the drug with
expired exclusivity. The only mechanism currently available for
establishing that two drugs from different sponsors can be expected to
have the same safety and effectiveness is the generic drug approval
process established under section 505(j) of the act for drugs approved
under section 505 of the act. There are scientific and technical
barriers to demonstrating that two biological products from different
manufacturers can be expected to have the same safety and
effectiveness. Moreover, there currently is no process for approving
generic versions of biological products regulated under section 351 of
the Public Health Service Act.
Question. Does the FDA believe that the original ``unimproved''
orphan product should in effect gain additional near exclusivity merely
because a second ``improved'' product gains exclusivity later than the
original product?
Answer. A product's period of orphan exclusivity is limited by
statute to seven years. When there are two orphan products that are
chemically the same, but are not the same drug because they have
different clinical profiles, a third product will be able to enter the
market upon the expiration of the first applicant's exclusivity, if it
establishes it is not the same as the drug that still has exclusivity.
The third product may show that it is clinically superior to the
product that still has exclusivity, or it may establish that it is the
same as the drug whose orphan exclusivity has expired and thus is
different from the product that still has exclusivity. By using the
clinically superior criteria, the orphan drug program protects the drug
development incentive, while permitting the introduction of better
products to treat serious diseases. Drugs regulated under Section 505
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act may be shown to be the same
as the drug whose exclusivity has expired by meeting the standard for
approval of a generic drug under Section 505(j).
REUSE OF SINGLE-USE MEDICAL DEVICES
Question. Last year, FDA officials promised my staff, that they
would revise either the MEDWATCH form or the guidance document used by
health processionals in reporting injuries, so that information on
whether a device was reused and the identity of a reprocessor might be
collected. This has not happened to date.
Question. When will the FDA be revising the MEDWATCH voluntary
reporting form so that appropriate tracking of injuries from reused
devices may take place ?
Answer. Two years ago, FDA modified its MedWatch voluntary report
form so that health professionals could indicate whether a device in an
adverse event was labeled for single use and whether it was being used
for the first time or reused. The instructions on FDA's web site for
FDA Form 3500--voluntary report form--address the reuse of single use
devices or SUDs. In block B5 of the form, the health care professional
is requested to report the facts and perceived contributions of reuse
to the adverse event. FDA has received about 1,399 adverse event
reports from MedWatch forms involving the reuse of single use devices.
Almost half of these reports involved dialyzer equipment. In response,
FDA has worked with the medical device community to issue safety alerts
and developed guidances on how to do reuse properly.
The instructions for FDA Form 3500A--mandatory report form--which
were written in 1995, do not explicitly mention reuse. The MedWatch
staff has revised the instructions to address the reuse issue. The new
instruction requests information about reuse in blocks F10, H6, and H8.
Also, a new device problem code has been added specifically for reuse.
The revised instructions are currently undergoing internal agency
review prior to OMB clearance.
FDA believes that implementing Phase II of the MeDSuN system, as
proposed in the fiscal year 2001 President's budget, would be the best
way to improve reporting of reused devices. MeDSuN will recruit a
statistical sample of hospitals and train them to report both adverse
events and routine procedures. This will enable FDA and the health care
community to put the reuse problems in context. At present, there are
no plans to further revise the MedWatch voluntary report form because
FDA believes that the voluntary form, with its recent changes, and the
proposed revised instructions for the mandatory form, when approved,
will address reporting reuse problems.
Question. When is FDA going to come out with final rules that
require high risk, highly-invasive devices be shown to be both SAFE and
EFFECTIVE for their intended use, not just when they are used for the
first time but for every use ?
Answer. FDA has sufficient authority to address the issue of reuse
of single use devices. New regulations are not necessary. On February
8, 2000, FDA posted two draft guidance documents on FDA web site. One
is titled Reprocessing and Reuse of Single-Use Devices: Review
Prioritization Scheme. The second is Enforcement Priorities for Single-
Use Devices Reprocessed by Third Parties and Hospitals. The
availability of these guidances was also announced in the Federal
Register on February 11, 2000 in 65 FR 7027.
The review prioritization scheme guidance document sets forth
factors FDA would consider in categorizing a reprocessed SUD as high,
moderate, or low risk. The enforcement priority guidance document sets
forth the agency's priorities for various requirements based on the
risk categorization of a device.
The end of the 60-day public comment period for both guidances is
April 11, 2000. The agency plans to review and consider all comments by
May 11, 2000 and expects the guidances to be finalized in July 2000.
Upon implementation of the final guidances, anticipated to be
January 2001, FDA would enforce premarket requirements for reprocessors
of single use devices deemed high-risk. The agency believes that the
requirement to submit premarket data will ensure the continued safety
of these devices. Moreover, the agency has the authority to take
immediate action at any time that a device poses an immediate and
significant risk to public health.
Question. If FDA believes or has research data that shows that some
of these devices can not be reprocessed safely, shouldn't they move to
prohibit the reprocessing of such devices?
Answer. To date, our research indicates that some single use
devices are more difficult to clean than others. FDA does not have
sufficient data associated with any particular models or brands of
single use devices, or SUDs, to support removing those products from
market. However, FDA has notified all stakeholders that reused SUDs are
subject to all statutory controls, including premarket notification,
and that FDA intends to phase in enforcement of all these controls for
third party reprocessors and hospitals that reuse devices labeled for
single use.
Question. When is the FDA going to start enforcing safety
requirements for high-risk, highly invasive reprocessed medical
devices?
Answer. FDA has proposed to start enforcing premarket requirements
against third party and hospital reprocessors of devices categorized as
High Risk--in FDA's draft guidance document A Reprocessing and Reuse of
Single-Use Devices: Review Prioritization Scheme--within 6 months of
issuance of the final enforcement guidance.
Question. How much money does the FDA need to do such enforcement?
Answer. To do such enforcement, FDA estimates that approximately $1
million will be needed in fiscal year 2001 and $2 million in fiscal
year 2002. These estimates assume that hospitals will reprocess single
use devices at a low or modest level.
Question. Of the $7.7 million in the Administration's budget for
new premarket device initiatives, how much is for the development of
safety standards for high risk reused devices?
Answer. I would be happy to provide that information for the
record:
[The information follows:]
FDA's fiscal year 2001 Budget request includes an increase of $2.8
million for medical device reuse. FDA believes the requested funds are
sufficient to carry out its regulatory responsibilities of this
initiative. The requested funds will ensure the safety and efficacy of
reprocessed devices by:
--increasing product review activities; and
--developing standards for high-risk reuse applications to ensure
that if a single-use device is going to be reused, it is done
safely and remains safe and effective for its intended use.
These activities will be accomplished through:
Hospital outreach.--FDA plans to conduct a variety of outreach
activities like mailings, speaking at conferences, posting notices on
the Web to aid hospitals in coming into compliance with the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Hospital compliance with reprocessing guidelines.--FDA is
considering pilot testing a program where some third party or
professional standards organization could include questions about reuse
in surveys of hospital standards and possibly in audits of hospital
practice.
Question. Is this sufficient?
Answer. Based on the expected volume of premarket submissions, this
amount will be sufficient for reprocessing single use devices.
Question. Will the new rules apply to all reprocessors, or just
third-party reprocessors?
Answer. There are no new rules, but FDA intends to explore existing
requirements for third party reprocessors and hospitals.
Question. Would the FDA not agree that where a device is
reprocessed is irrelevant to the consumer and therefore, the same
standards and safeguards should apply whether the device is reprocessed
by a third-party or a hospital?
Answer. FDA agrees that appropriate safeguards need to be in place
for reprocessing operations. FDA's proposed guidance documents define
the agency's intent to ensure that such safeguards are in place in both
third-party reprocessing firms and in hospitals.
Question. What is FDA doing to make sure that hospitals fully
understand the risks of reprocessing and learn about the research going
on at FDA.
Answer. FDA has undertaken various efforts to make sure that
hospitals fully understand the risks of reprocessing and to make them
aware of the research going on at FDA. We have launched a major
outreach program to help both hospitals and consumers become aware of
the agency's proposed strategy to address the issue of reuse of single
use devices--SUDs--and to solicit their input. Some examples outreach
efforts included an FDA sponsored satellite teleconference on November
10, 1999 that was broadcasted nationally to explain the agency's
proposed reuse strategy and an FDA hosted public meeting that was held
on December 14, 1999, to solicit public comment on the agency's
proposed strategy. FDA scientists have held meetings as well to discuss
their research. In addition, the agency created a web site to
disseminate FDA information on reuse of SUDs and established an
electronic mailbox whereby consumers and interested parties may submit
questions to FDA concerning reuse of SUDs. FDA has also held several
conference calls with the Joint Commission on Accreditation of
Healthcare Organizations--JCAHO--to discuss the development of a joint
program to audit hospital reprocessors to ensure compliance to FDA
regulations and to educate these facilities about our policies and
relevant research.
Question. What is FDA doing to make sure that hospitals fully
understand that these reprocessed devices are not FDA approved and have
not been demonstrated to be ``safe and effective'' as FDA defines such
terms ?
Answer. FDA has launched a major outreach program to help hospitals
and consumers become aware of the agency's requirements and proposed
strategy to address the issue of reuse of SUDs and to solicit their
input. In addition, FDA has held several conference calls with the
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations--JCAHO to
discuss the development of a joint program to audit hospital
reprocessors to ensure compliance to FDA regulations and to educate
these facilities about our policies and relevant research.
FDA has contacted the American Hospital Association (AHA) to seek
their assistance in disseminating FDA information. We also have
requested that they serve as an intermediary between FDA and hospitals
on a FDA-assisted educational program geared specifically to hospitals.
We envision that the educational program will provide hospitals with
information that may help them decide as to whether they should
continue to reprocess SUDs in-house or to contract this service with
commercial third party reprocessors.
AHA surveyed its associated member organizations including the
Association for Healthcare Resources and Materials Management and the
American Society of Health Risk Management, as to what type of
information they desired from the agency. The results of the survey
indicated that articles, summaries of studies, and up-to-date web site
information would be helpful and that the information be sent via
electronic mail.
I would be happy to provide for the record some examples of our
outreach efforts:
[The information follows:]
--Sponsored a satellite teleconference on November 10, 1999 that was
broadcasted nationally to explain FDA's proposed reuse
strategy;
--Convened a public meeting on December 14, 1999, to solicit public
comment on the agency's proposed strategy;
--Created a web site to disseminate FDA information on reuse of SUDs;
--Created an electronic mailbox whereby consumers and interested
parties may submit questions concerning reuse of SUDs to FDA;
--Published a detailed article on the subject of reuse of SUDs in the
User Facility Reporting Bulletin; and
--Compiled an electronic mailing list of the participants that
attended the public meeting for the purpose of following up on
inquiries or for notifying them of the availability of the risk
prioritization scheme and enforcement priorities draft
guidances.
--Conducted meetings where FDA device scientists discussed their
research.
GENE THERAPY
The area of gene therapy clinical trials has come under close
scrutiny lately. Problems have been found both with research protocols,
lack of reporting and the public's ability to know when research
protocols result in adverse patient outcomes. In 1994, I inserted
report language in the Agriculture Appropriations bill that directed
FDA to create a tracking data bank for patients involved in clinical
trials. The language stated: ``The Food and Drug Administration is one
of the lead agencies involved in gene therapy biomedical technologies.
Many gene therapy protocols are being approved by various government
and institutional committees, yet there is no mechanism to track gene
therapy patients throughout their lives to assess long-term effects.
Currently, there are only a few hundred individuals that are under
protocols for gene therapy. Now is the time to establish a tracking
program. Accordingly, within the funds available, the Food and Drug
Administration should create a gene therapy registry of patients.''
According to inquires by my office to FDA, I am told that in
response to this Congressional mandate the agency launched the
development a prototype for such a system, the Gene Therapy Information
Network (GTIN). However, FDA did not follow the 1994 report language
because in stead of tracking patients, FDA set up a pilot system to
track research protocols. FDA limited the tracking to the life of the
clinical trials under FDA supervision prior to product approval. So the
long-term effects on individual patients were not studied and in fact
no tracking of individual patients took place. The computer software
generated for this initiative was eventually used for another purpose.
Question. Why did FDA not comply with the provision to set up a
patient tracking data base?
Answer. FDA supports the gene therapy patient tracking system
concept. FDA has begun to formulate a request for proposal (RFP) for
the gene therapy patient tracking system that will incorporate
automated methods to receive, track, and oversee adverse event
information. Between December 1994 and 1996 FDA developed a pilot gene
therapy patient tracking system, known as Gene Therapy Information
Network (GTIN). The pilot was a project under FDA's Submission
Management and Review Tracking (SMART) initiative. The GTIN was
strictly a patient tracking system, did not contain or tie into adverse
event reporting and was not expanded beyond the pilot phase. Some of
the GTIN concepts were used in developing the National
Xenotransplantation Database (NXD). FDA believes to effectively enhance
patient protection, the gene therapy patient tracking system will need
to tie into FDA's current adverse event reporting system and the short
term and long-term effects for the patient population.
Some of the components needed for a gene therapy patient tracking
system are in various stages of analysis. FDA is looking at the many
factors which will affect the cost of such a system. Among those
factors are: the development time frame; the size of the system; the
tracking requirements and the staffing needs. While this analysis is
not complete and the development cost and time has not yet been
determined, we are certain there will be significant costs for
development, startup, and maintenance phases of the project. Much of
the system costs will be in creating and maintaining an infrastructure
to assure proper maintenance of the database code and structure,
resources to staff the function of the database including data entry
personnel, medical and scientific reviewers to properly evaluate
adverse events, support for coordination with the NIH OBA staff and
RAC, and other infrastructure issues.
Question. Does FDA agree that in light of recent developments, this
data base now actually seems like a pretty good idea and would have
detected problems much earlier than happened without such a tracking
mechanism?
Answer. FDA manages adverse event data in many product fields
without a special product-specific database. The desire for such a
database for gene therapy arose largely from the interest in lifelong
monitoring of patients including monitoring of their off-spring for
potential effects of the gene therapy. Such monitoring, while
potentially appropriate given theoretical concerns regarding gene
therapy, is not easily conducted under normal clinical trial paradigms.
The recent University of Pennsylvania incident involved short term
toxicities more typical of drug development.
For a class of treatments which is novel and rapidly expanding, a
database potentially could facilitate rapid communication and
integration of information. However, of note, gene therapy is very
diverse, involving many essentially unrelated classes of treatment.
There have only been a very limited number of protocols which have used
adenoviral vectors into a blood vessel such as was done at the
University of Pennsylvania. The limited amount of data could be well
communicated within FDA through normal channels such as our Adenovirus
gene therapy working group. Furthermore, there was not evidence that
clinically significant disseminated intravascular coagulation or acute
respiratory distress syndrome had occurred prior to the death at the
University of Pennsylvania. Thus, the existence of the gene therapy
information network would not have been expected to provide information
which would have impacted the case.
Question. Given that FDA is the agency that oversees all clinical
trials rather than just federally sponsored clinical trials, would the
FDA agree that such a tracking mechanism is best housed at FDA?
Answer. We agree that FDA is the appropriate Agency to develop and
maintain a gene therapy tracking registry. Cell and gene therapy
products constitute a new and emerging scientific area that challenges
existing regulatory systems. FDA would support, given adequate
resources, the establishment of a functional gene therapy tracking
registry.
Question. How much money would the FDA need to comply with the 1994
report language?
Answer. FDA will continue to work with the Committee to develop the
costs of a gene tracking system as described.
Question. Under current FDA requirements for research protocols,
how would a patient get information on risks associated with a research
study independent of the researchers actually telling the patient the
full risks ?
Answer. Under FDA's regulations pertaining to Institutional Review
Boards (21 CFR Part 56), the IRB is responsible for requiring that
information given to subjects as part of informed consent is in
accordance with section 50.25 (21 CFR 56.109(b)). Further, the IRB has
the authority to observe or have a third party observe the consent
process and the research (21 CFR 56.109(e)). Thus, the information on
risks would be available to the patient through the consent process and
document, from the individual identified in the consent form as the
individual to contact for answers to questions, and from the
responsible IRB. FDA's informed consent regulations (21 CFR Part 50)
describe the specific information that is to be provided to subjects in
obtaining the subject's informed consent and how consent is to be
documented. These regulation require ``A description of any reasonably
foreseeable risks or discomforts to the subject'' (21 CFR 50.25(a)(2)).
They also require, when appropriate, ``A statement that significant new
findings developed during the course of the research which may relate
to the subject's willingness to continue participation will be provided
to the subject'' (21 CFR 50.25(b)(5)). Further, they are required to
contain ``An explanation of whom to contact for answers to pertinent
questions about the research . . .'' (21 CFR 50.25(a)(7)).
Question. How would a patient know of the financial interests of a
researcher?
Answer. FDA's informed consent regulations which specify the
minimum information that is required to be provided to research
subjects, do not require that the patient be apprised regarding the
investigator's financial interests. In accordance with 21 CFR
56.109(b), the IRB may require that information, in addition to that
specifically mentioned in section 50.25, be given to the subjects when
in the IRB's judgment the information would meaningfully add to the
protection of the rights and welfare of subjects. Thus, when an IRB
determines that such information would be meaningful in protecting the
rights and welfare of subjects, the IRB has the authority to require
that the subjects be made known of financial interests of a researcher.
Question. Does the FDA believe that full disclosure of financial
interest should be required for researchers?
Answer. From the juxtaposition of this question with the previous
question, FDA assumes that the question is referring to full disclosure
to the subject, not to FDA (which is covered, in part by 21 CFR Part
54). The agency believes that this is a complex question for which a
consensus has not yet emerged. Certainly, it is critical for a research
subject to understand that the motivation of a researcher is different
from the motivation of the individual's treating physician,
particularly when these individuals are the same. FDA also recognizes
that there are interests, beyond those that are financial, that may
impact on a researcher's judgment and actions. Therefore, FDA is
collaborating with NIH and the Office of the Secretary in planning a
public consultation this summer with a view to developing better and
more specific guidance for investigators, sponsors, IRBs and research
subjects regarding the disclosure of financial interests.
Question. What is FDA doing to promote better public disclosure of
adverse events and research risks to those enrolled in clinical trials?
Answer. FDA has formed a working group to determine its role in
reviewing the adequacy of informed consent documents. Currently, the
agency relies, in large part, on the work of the IRB. Sometimes, the
agency reviews model consent documents provided to it as part of an
application; in other instances, either the model consent form is not
submitted or it is not reviewed. The agency is evaluating its review
process in this regard.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
GENERIC DRUGS
Generic drug application median approval times have improved from
twenty-seven months in 1995 to 17.3 months in 1999. However, generic
drug applications are statutorily required to be completed within six
months.
Question. What efforts are being made at the Food and Drug
Administration to decrease processing time for generic drug
applications?
Answer. FDA is required to take final action on generic drug
applications within 180 days. The agency is making every attempt to
complete all final action within 180 days. Either an approval or
disapproval is considered by the agency to be a final action. The
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act states in Section 505(b)(4)(A),
``Within one hundred and eighty days of the initial receipt of an
application under (2) . . . the Secretary shall approve or disapprove
the application''. The agency makes every attempt to meet this
requirement; however, for a number of reasons it is not always possible
to do so. After receiving a disapproval action, manufacturers
frequently resubmit applications that address the deficiencies
indicated in the disapproval action. Approval times are substantially
longer than review times because many reflect multiple review cycles.
The review time for generic drug applications can be decreased by
improving our information technology infrastructure to enable us to
increase the number of electronic submissions and reviews. We also
believe that increasing the generic drug science base will improve our
processing time. Funding is needed for research to support the
development of scientifically rigorous bioequivalence testing
methodologies for nonsystemically absorbed drug products. The stronger
scientific support of these approvals, the more likely it will be that
we can successfully meet innovator challenges.
Question. What benefits do generic drugs provide to consumers?
Answer. Approved generic drug products provide a safe, effective,
low cost alternative to the American public.
Question. What are the downsides to generic drugs?
Answer. We do not believe there are any downsides to generic drugs.
A generic drug product is comparable to an innovator drug product in
dosage form, strength, route of administration, quality, performance
characteristics and intended use.
NEUTRACEUTICALS
In recent years, the marketplace has seen a sharp increase in the
number of herbals and other natural products that are purported to have
a beneficial impact on health and nutrition, giving rise to an entire
industry known as ``neutraceuticals.'' Over 60 million U.S. adults, or
approximately 1 in 2, take some form of dietary supplement.
Question. With the number of Americans using neutraceuticals
rising, what action is the Food and Drug Administration taking to
evaluate potency and chemical composition of neutraceutical products?
Answer. Substances referred to as ``neutraceuticals'' are not
specifically recognized in statutes or in regulations. All products
regulated as foods must meet applicable safety and labeling
requirements. In many cases, these products may be marketed without
premarket review or approval by FDA. As such, it is the manufacturer's
responsibility to ensure that marketed products are safe for their
intended use and are labeled in a truthful and not misleading manner.
Consistent with all foods, and as warranted by public health concerns
and enforcement priorities, FDA will evaluate the potency and/or
chemical composition of specific products on a case-by-case basis.
Question. What technologies are being employed by the Food and Drug
Administration to evaluate the composition of neutraceuticals?
Answer. Evaluation of the composition of all food products,
including what some call neutraceuticals, is dependent on identifying
and validating methods that are appropriate for the particular
substance of interest, for the matrix in which the substance is found,
and for the nature of the question being asked. Thus, the type of
technology used is decided on a case-by-case basis. For example there
are a variety of chromatography techniques and mass spectrometry that
might be helpful.
Question. What new technologies are being developed to evaluate the
safety of neutraceuticals?
Answer. The types of new technologies needed to evaluate the safety
of foods that may be referred to as ``neutraceuticals'' are similar to
the types of new technologies needed for many food ingredients and
products. In evaluating foods, it is more a matter of adapting existing
techniques and technologies to the specific types of products under
evaluation, as would be the case with electron spin analysis.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Cochran. The subcommittee will stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., Tuesday, March 7, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY AGENCIES NOT APPEARING FOR FORMAL HEARINGS
[Clerk's note.--The following agencies of the Department of
Agriculture did not appear before the subcommittee this year.
Chairman Cochran requested these agencies to submit testimony
in support of their fiscal year 2001 budget request. Those
statements follow:]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN MERRIGAN, ADMINISTRATORE
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to have
this opportunity to represent the Agricultural Marketing service in
presenting our fiscal year 2001 budget proposals.
MISSION
AMS' mission is to facilitate the marketing of agricultural
products in the domestic and international marketplace, ensure fair
trading practices, and promote a competitive and efficient marketplace
so that producers, traders, and consumers all benefit. We accomplish
this mission through a variety of activities funded from appropriations
and from fees charged for services. Since most of our user-funded
services are voluntary, we must be responsive to customer needs while
remaining conscious of the cost. Through our services such as market
reporting and grading, we maintain close contact with our customers,
who help to keep us informed about their concerns. We also recognize
and support USDA-wide efforts to assist the agricultural industry.
CHANGES IN AGRICULTURAL MARKETING
American agriculture is confronting rapid changes in industry
structure, decreasing government price supports, new trade agreements
and market outlets, evolving consumer expectations, and new production
methods. Industry concentration in certain agricultural industries
threatens to inhibit competition. While global trade agreements open
new markets, they often set new market requirements and restrictions
such as the hormone testing of beef required by the European Union, and
new questions on the labeling of genetically engineered food.
Furthermore, since price supports are no longer available for producers
to ``fall-back'' on, agricultural producers, particularly smaller
producers, must increasingly depend on marketing to maintain their
profitability. Small and medium-sized farmers have the fewest resources
to compete in this evolving marketplace. USDA policy recognizes the
importance of small farms to the nation's economy, resources, and
social fabric. In fact, small farms lead the development of organic
production systems in the U.S. We propose to make available the
information, tools, and expertise all agricultural producers need to
market their products. Furthermore, AMS' international marketing
efforts assist all sectors of the agricultural industry to maintain
their foreign sales, which are critical to our nation's farm economy.
Our budget proposals reflect, in priority order, AMS' response to the
current needs of our customers.
MANDATORY MARKET NEWS
Concern over the potential harmful effects of industry
concentration on competition resulted in the Livestock Mandatory Price
Reporting Act of 1999. Consolidation in the red meat industry has
resulted in the growth of private marketing agreements and declining
participation in public markets. Since voluntary price reports do not
reflect transactions from marketing agreements, it is difficult for
producers to determine prevailing market prices or to evaluate contract
offers from packers. The lack of price information also makes it
difficult to administer programs that address economic stress in the
livestock industries. Mandatory price reporting will increase the
transparency of market price signals for producers and others in the
marketing chain. These mandatory reports will include 90 percent of the
beef, 96 percent of the hogs, 84 percent of the lambs slaughtered and
80 percent of the lambs imported. Congress authorized the Secretary to
initiate mandatory reporting by the industry in the fiscal year 2000
thousand budget and provided start-up funding of $4.7 million from CCC
funds allotted to AMS in fiscal year 2000. Since these funds will not
be available to AMS in fiscal year 2001, we are requesting an increase
of $5.9 million to finance the annual cost of the mandatory reporting
program. As we implement mandatory reporting, Market News reporters
will expand their contacts throughout the industry--with producers,
processors, wholesalers, retailers, importers, and exporters of
livestock, meat, and related products. At the same time, the agency has
been encouraged to continue all of its voluntary reporting that falls
outside the coverage of the mandated program. Because of the mandatory
nature of the new program, an extensive monitoring and review system
will ensure that the information is accurate and timely. During fiscal
year 2000, AMS must hire additional reporters and support staff to
analyze and edit the dramatically expanded volume of data to be
collected, and compliance personnel to audit packer records to ensure
that packers are accurately reporting the required information. We will
also begin development of a computer system to manage the data, and
establish outreach programs to educate producers about the new
information. The fiscal year 2001 request reflects a full year of
program activity at fully staffed levels, and continuing development
and maintenance of the computer system. We expect to publish the
proposed rule for mandatory reporting in the near future, and hope to
have the program implemented before the end of this summer.
ORGANIC CERTIFICATION
A segment of the agricultural industry that is continuing to grow
is organic products. American consumers are embracing organic foods at
a rate of 20 percent a year. Congress determined that there should be a
nationwide minimum standard and a system to certify that products meet
that standard. AMS' organic certification program, now in the final
stages of development, will assist producers by facilitating interstate
commerce of organically produced food, and assure consumers that
organically produced products meet a consistent standard.
AMS is proposing budget increases that are designed to better serve
consumers and our customers in the organic industry. These increases
are for organic certification, market news, and marketing agreements
and orders.
We are requesting a net increase of $703 thousand for the organic
certification program, of which $639 thousand is needed only for one
year. These funds will allow us to ``jump-start'' the certification
program and provide outreach to new customers. As we begin implementing
the program, we will educate producers, consumers, processors,
certifiers and traders about the program while accrediting at least 49
certifying agents and monitoring their activities. We will monitor
State programs' compliance with national regulations and develop a
system to prevent fraudulent labeling. In addition, we will implement
an international program component to develop standards and accredit
international certifying agents, and will participate in the
development of international agreements for organic products and
production. The additional funding requested will enable us to begin
full operation of the certification program.
ORGANIC MARKET NEWS
AMS is requesting $614 thousand to expand market reporting on
organically-grown fruits and vegetables so that producers can find the
best markets for their products and maximize their returns. Producers
of organically-grown fruits and vegetables need timely, reliable,
consistent, and unbiased marketing information on factors such as
prices, supply, demand, and trends. Such information is scarce,
especially for smaller producers with fewer resources, which places the
larger participants in the market at an advantage. Efficient markets
can help consumers by keeping prices reasonable.
MARKETING ORDERS AND ORGANIC PRODUCTION
The growing market for organic products is becoming an issue facing
industry fruit and vegetable marketing agreements and orders
committees. Virtually all of the 36 active fruit and vegetable
marketing agreement and order programs could soon include some
organically produced commodities. We are requesting $1 million of
Section 32 Administrative funding to develop our expertise and provide
research on the economic impact of marketing order programs on the
organic sector. Marketing agreements and orders are designed to help
stabilize market conditions for fruit and vegetable products for the
benefit of producers and consumers. Marketing order programs assist
farmers by allowing them to collectively work to solve marketing
problems. AMS oversees the activities of the industry committees. AMS
and the marketing order committees need additional data on organic
production, marketing and distribution channels, as well as a
projection of future organic fruit and vegetable production in order to
resolve the issues raised. Without supporting data, it is difficult for
AMS to make informed decisions on the interrelationship between organic
and conventionally grown commodities.
SMALL FARMERS AND FSMIP
To assist small farmers on a local scale, AMS is requesting an
additional $300 thousand in ``Payments to States'' matching grants
funding. These funds will be made available to the States for local and
regional product development and marketing initiatives that will assist
small farmers to identify and develop marketing opportunities. The new
projects would focus on: marketing opportunities emphasizing local or
direct marketing; export-oriented market research and technical
assistance targeting small, limited resource producers and marketing
organizations; and encouraging sustainable agricultural production and
marketing. By providing matching funds, we are able to compound the
benefits received by small farmers. In conjunction with these new
grants funds, we are requesting $31 thousand in appropriated funds to
administer the additional grants and conduct outreach efforts. We will
assist cooperators to develop their submissions, monitor the projects
in progress, and ensure that the results are made widely available to
potential beneficiaries.
FOREIGN MARKET NEWS
Our request for $453 thousand to expand agricultural market
reporting on foreign markets will assist all agricultural producers and
traders interested in international trading, but particularly the small
and medium-sized farmer with limited resources who is interested in
export markets. Rapid changes in international markets are largely due
to shifts in global partnerships and trade agreements, production
methods, and customer preferences. The U.S. agriculture industry must
maintain its market share and expand sales in international markets in
order to maintain its profitability. Expanded market data will help
U.S. commercial interests gain access to foreign markets by supplying a
greater quantity of data on more foreign markets. Farming and ranching
operations of all sizes are increasingly dependent on market expansion
and exports for their growth in income. Overproduction of many
commodities makes it particularly necessary to increase exports to
maintain farm revenues. Trade agreements can provide improved access to
foreign markets; however, traders need information to determine the
most favorable markets. AMS is the only publicly available source for
centralized, consistent, and timely information on international prices
and trade volume. The dairy, meat, poultry, and fruit and vegetable
industries have asked AMS to expand its international market coverage
so that they can take advantage of business opportunities available
around the world. Foreign market information is especially important to
small and medium sized producers who would otherwise have no access to
the data.
PDP--WATER TESTING PROGRAM
Foreign buyers and U.S. consumers are concerned about pesticide
residue levels in food. We are asking for $1.1 million to plan and
implement a new water testing program within the Pesticide Data
Program, or PDP. AMS, under the provisions of the Food Quality
Protection Act, or FQPA, samples, tests, and compiles pesticide residue
levels on fresh and processed foods. EPA uses AMS pesticide data
findings to develop consumption risk data and to determine whether
pesticides should be re-registered for continued use. The FQPA requires
EPA to consider all routes of pesticide residue exposure, including
drinking water. EPA's current reliance on models may significantly
overstate the residue levels in drinking water and threatens the
continued availability of several agricultural pesticides. EPA
continues to require the type of data being collected on food
commodities under the current program. Due to the complexity of testing
water, AMS cannot redirect current PDP funds to begin a water testing
program without seriously compromising the statistical reliability of
the program's findings on other commodities. Pesticide residue analysis
provides the data needed by EPA for informed decisions on the safety of
agricultural pesticides, and reassures foreign and domestic buyers that
the pesticide residues on U.S. foods meet safety standards.
MICROBIOLOGY DATA PROGRAM
In the area of food safety, we are requesting $6.2 million to
initiate a microbiological data program as part of the President's Food
Safety Initiative. This program responds to concerns generated by the
sporadic cases of microbiological contamination resulting from food-
borne disease outbreaks in recent years. The requested funds will allow
AMS to build on the framework of the Pesticide Data Program to design a
scientifically-sound program to collect data related to microbiological
contamination that causes food-borne outbreaks. The program will
collect data pertaining food-borne pathogens and spoilage microflora on
domestic and imported fruits and vegetables that can be used to
identify and avoid potentially dangerous situations that can cause loss
of life. Under this program, AMS will perform almost 30 thousand
analyses a year on a maximum of 11 commodities in 10 participating
states that represent approximately 50 percent of the population.
Samples will be collected at terminal markets and chain store
distribution centers, from commodities selected based on per capita
consumption from those that are usually eaten raw. There is no other
statistically valid Federal or State program that can give a complete
microbiological picture of fruits and vegetables nationwide. By using
the existing Pesticide Data Program infrastructure for sampling,
participating State laboratories, and data reporting, AMS is able to
minimize costs for this program.
COMMODITY PURCHASE SERVICES
Our two final budget increases will allow AMS to improve service to
our customers and enhance the overall efficiency of the Commodity
Purchase Services program. We are requesting $795 thousand of Section
32 Administrative funding to customize our Economic Database
Information Network, or EDIN, for use in purchase decisions, and $225
thousand to develop a Management Information System for the Food
Quality Assurance Program and initiate an outreach effort toward new
customers.
Increased funding will allow us to expand the EDIN database so that
it can be used to administer surplus commodity and Federal feeding
program food purchases. The database was begun in fiscal year 2000 to
house information on fruits and vegetables for decision-making by
industry marketing order committees and for government regulatory
impact analyses. Commodity purchase decisions also depend on access to
comprehensive, readily accessible information. For many of the
commodities involved, information must be drawn from a variety of
sources and constantly updated. The database will provide an
interactive repository of commodity data that supports several hundred
million dollars of annual government purchases for federal feeding
program outlets. We will add meat and fish, poultry, and specialty
commodities, current and historical data sets on commodity prices,
shipments, production, inventories, and other information that will
support decision-making. The database will streamline purchase
activities by eliminating duplication and improving the scope and
timeliness of data for more comprehensive analyses on commodity
purchases. AMS will make the database information available via a Web
page and CD-ROMs, to the public--including farmers, processors,
wholesalers, brokers, retailers, and researchers--and to other
government agencies.
Additional funding will also be used to develop a publicly-
accessible information system for the Food Quality Assurance Program
and support a heightened outreach effort for current and potential
users of this information. The Food Quality Assurance Program develops
government-wide food purchase specifications, including Commercial Item
Descriptions, or CIDs, Institutional Meat Purchase Specifications, and
other product descriptions. These purchase specifications allow for
product standardization and increased competition within the market,
and ultimately, a more uniform product and lower price for the buyer.
Purchase specifications find widespread use by many private sector
institutional buyers. Public sector purchasers such as schools are also
finding these specifications to be of tremendous value. Current and
potential customers have requested that AMS expand the product variety
and customer base for CIDs. To better facilitate their use by all
interested parties, we will develop a centralized database that will
contain information on all CIDs and other product specifications,
quality assurance results, and inspection plant surveys to verify
quality and safety. The database will allow AMS to expand the range of
CIDs on products not covered by U.S. grade standards and provide
electronic access to the various product specifications maintained and
developed by the Food Quality Assurance Program. This increase will
allow us to better serve our current customers such as Federal and
State food purchasers, and expand the program to include school
districts that buy food for their child feeding programs. Through
substantial outreach, we will assist other potential public sector
users, including local schools and state governments, in the
application of these specifications to their purchases of food
products.
BUDGET REQUEST SUMMARY
That concludes our list of budget increases proposed for fiscal
year 2001. By fund, our increase requests total $15 million for
``Marketing Services,'' $300 thousand for FSMIP grants under ``Payments
to States,'' and $2 million in ``Section 32 Administrative funds.''
I hope you agree with me that these requests will allow AMS to move
forward in assisting the agricultural industry by facilitating domestic
and international marketing, particularly for the small and medium-
sized farmer.
Thank you for this opportunity to present our budget proposals.
______
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. FLOYD P. HORN, ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this
opportunity to present the Agricultural Research Service's budget
recommendations for fiscal year 2001. Before I begin to outline the
Agency's program and financing recommendations, I would like to take a
moment to reflect on the truly amazing transformation that has taken
place in American agriculture.
A hundred years ago, nearly 40 percent of employed people worked on
farms. Today, less than 2 percent work on farms. In the span of a
century, the number of farms has fallen by two-thirds, while the
average farm size has more than tripled. This reflects increased off-
farm employment opportunities and growing productivity in agriculture.
Farm production has become more concentrated. In 1900, 17 percent
of U.S. farms produced 50 percent of farm sales. In 1997, only 2
percent of farms produced half of all agricultural sales.
There has also been a dramatic increase in crop yields over the
past 100 years. From 1900 to 1999, wheat yields have multiplied from
12.2 bushels per acre to 42.7 bushels per acre; corn, from 28.1 bushels
per acre to 134.5 bushels per acre; soybeans, from 10.9 bushels per
acre to 36.7 bushels per acre; cotton, from 203 pounds per acre to 592
pounds per acre; peanuts, 661 pounds per acre to 2,660 pounds per acre;
and potatoes, from 52 hundred weight per acre to 348 hundred weight per
acre.
Similarly, with higher crop productivity, animal production has
jumped substantially. Chicken production has expanded more than 10-
fold. Hog production has increased 3-fold. With significantly higher
output per cow, milk production has also risen sharply.
Without question, many of the advances we have seen which have
literally transformed American agriculture are the direct result of new
technologies and practices which have been developed through
agricultural research. It is agricultural research that has made
possible the huge increases in agricultural productivity that we have
seen.
Agricultural research is constantly adjusting to address new
challenges of a dynamic world. At the beginning of the twentieth
century, the emphasis of agricultural research was primarily on the
production of crops and animals and their protection from diseases and
pests. The role of research has expanded beyond agricultural production
efficiencies to include food safety, human nutrition, emerging diseases
and exotic pests, new products and agricultural uses, sustainable
agricultural practices, and natural resources conservation. Today,
agricultural research embraces a variety of new approaches and
technologies, from integrated pest management to remote sensing
technologies and biotechnologies, and tools, from precision agriculture
to bioinformatic tools and genetic sequencing. The new technologies and
tools are being used to improve the nutritional value and safety of the
food supply, convert agricultural materials to biofuels, manipulate the
properties of plant and animal genes, etc.
MAJOR ARS ACCOMPLISHMENTS
During the past 10 years, ARS accomplishments have significantly
benefitted American agriculture. Examples (organized under four broad
goals) include:
An agricultural system that is highly competitive in the global economy
--Pioneering the concept of using gene markers to assist in selecting
plants and animals for improving yield, imparting disease
resistance, enhancing nutritional value, and making food
products safer for the consumer.
--Publishing the first genetic linkage maps in the world for swine
and cattle which were key contributors in the first genetic map
for poultry.
--Organizing a multi-State areawide integrated pest management
project to control the codling moth, the key pest affecting
commercial apple and pear production in the Pacific Northwest.
This initiative was so successful that pesticide usage was
reduced 75 percent and products from the area were able to be
exported to nations where they had been previously restricted.
This strategy is now being followed for other important crop
pests.
--Discovering and patenting a new method to immunize poultry from a
number of diseases by injecting vaccines into the egg. Today,
this technology protects 85 percent of North American broilers.
--Developing and releasing a new cotton variety with high fiber
strength, which has enabled the industry to introduce new
processes for wrinkle-resistant cotton slacks, and open a
multi-billion dollar market.
A safe and secure food and fiber system
--Cloning a plant gene conferring resistance to disease causing
viruses. The ability to breed agriculturally important plants
that are resistant to virus borne diseases is critical to
preserving a secure food production system.
--Developing the first practical live animal test for scrapie in
sheep, a disease similar to ``Mad Cow'' disease that has
plagued Europe. This technology will allow producers to develop
disease free flocks. APHIS is using the third eyelid test in
their planning for a scrapie eradication program in sheep.
--Developing a five minute test to identify bacterial contamination
on meat. A second rapid detection test for E. coli is being
used by commercial laboratories that screen ground meat for
fast food restaurants and other retail food outlets.
--Developing a product called Preempt (TM) that can be sprayed over
newly hatched chicks to reduce the potential for salmonella
contamination. This technology, known as ``competitive
exclusion,'' will significantly decrease the potential for
human illness from salmonella.
A healthy and well nourished population
--Demonstrating that the nutritional status of a host can influence
the pathogenesis of a known human viral pathogen.
--Producing the only reliable human studies on the effects of
transfatty acids in the diet and their adverse impact on the
risk factors for heart disease.
--Demonstrating how supplementing the diets of postmenopausal women
with additional calcium and vitamin D lowers the rate of bone
loss, slowing the development of osteoarthritis.
--Identifying how the brain function of children with certain
nutritional deficits differs from those with good nutritional
status.
--Maintaining the Nutrient Database which is the primary source of
data on nutrients in food used in managing Federal nutrition
programs and widely used throughout the food industry.
--Developing a series of high fiber, low calorie products (OATRIM, Z-
TRIM and NU-TRIM) that can be used as fat substitutes in
prepared foods.
An agricultural system that protects natural resources and the
environment
--Developing conservation tillage systems and crop residue management
practices that have increased profitability and improved soil
quality on hundreds of thousands of acres in the United States.
--Developing methods to remediate toxic element contaminated sites
using specially designed biosolids compost. This approach has
greatly reduced the remediation cost at some toxic metal
contaminated ``Superfund'' sites.
--Developing an indexing tool for mapping the vulnerability of
landscapes and locating areas with the greatest potential for
contributing to water contamination by phosphorus. This index
provides Federal and State agencies with the tools to manage
watersheds to reduce water pollution.
--Developing the Riparian Ecosystem Management Model to provide
landowners and environmental agencies with guidelines to design
and manage forest buffers.
--Altering the nutritional or other end-use quality of certain grains
to reduce their phytic acid, phosphorus, and mineral content.
This research is focused on animal feeds and is designed to
increase the absorption rates of nutrients by the animal while
reducing the amount of phosphorus entering the environment.
--Screening thousands of American Elm trees to identify resistance to
Dutch Elm disease. As a result, two new resistant varieties
were developed and released to wholesale nurseries for
propagation and sale to the public.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET
ARS' fiscal year 2001 budget recommends a funding level of
$894,258,000 which represents an increase of $63,874,000 above the
Agency's fiscal year 2000 level. This budget includes $97,815,000 in
national high priority research initiatives, and $8,500,000 to finance
pay costs. To help fund these high priority initiatives, the proposed
budget also includes a reduction of $42,441,000 of both lower priority
ongoing research and earmarked research projects added to the Agency's
fiscal year 2000 appropriation.
NEW AND EXPANDED RESEARCH INITIATIVES
ARS' fiscal year 2001 research initiatives are directed at
maximizing productivity and product quality while preserving natural
resources and environmental quality. The initiatives are also directed
to the concerns of every American--for a safe, healthy, nutritious food
supply. The specific research initiatives are detailed below.
An agricultural system that is highly competitive in the global economy
One of ARS' principal goals is to conduct research which results in
strengthening U.S. agriculture at home and abroad. This is accomplished
by developing new techniques and strategies to prevent or control
insects and diseases which reduce economic losses and increase product
longevity and market quality. Research is conducted which demonstrates
new postharvest technologies that add value, improve quality, and
overcome technical barriers to trade. ARS also carries out research
which results in the development of new products and new uses for
agricultural products. Under this goal, ARS is recommending in its
fiscal year 2001 budget new and expanded research initiatives in
biobased products and new uses.
Biobased products and new uses (to expand markets, improve
farm income, and reduce dependence on nonrenewable
fossil fuels)
Biobased feedstocks and products are commercial and industrial
products, other than food and feed, that utilize biological products or
renewable domestic agricultural (plant, animal, and marine) or forestry
materials in their production and manufacture. On August 12, 1999 the
President signed an Executive Order 13101 to accelerate the development
and commercialization of biofuels and biobased products. Legislation to
enhance this program area was also introduced by the Congress. Biobased
products research is a high priority for several reasons. First, there
is a need for new products and uses to expand markets for farm and
forest products and improve farm income. Second, there is an increasing
concern regarding the long term adverse environmental impacts from the
continuing use of nonrenewable fossil resources. Third, our Nation is
growing increasingly dependent on imported sources of energy and
industrial feedstocks.
ARS is requesting an increase of $14,000,000 to develop biobased
materials from agricultural commodities and byproducts; improve
conversion of agricultural materials to biofuels; expand development of
novel crops for value added products; improve biomass for energy; and
increase our knowledge of fundamental biomaterials science. The
proposed research will bring to commercialization an increased number
of biobased feedstocks and products that can successfully compete in
the marketplace with fossil fuel-based feedstocks and products. Success
will increase the use of environmentally preferable feedstocks and
products while reducing the use of those that add global warming gases
to the atmosphere. Success will add new profit potential to old crops
and create profitable new crops. Moreover, adoption of biobased
feedstocks and new products will bring growth in processing and
manufacturing businesses near to where the crops are grown, providing
new off-farm jobs and income growth for rural America.
A safe and secure food and fiber system
One of the Agency's principal goals is to perform research which
will ensure that U.S. farmers and food processors have the technologies
and resources necessary to produce a safe and secure food system. Under
this goal, ARS is recommending in its fiscal year 2001 budget new and
expanded research initiatives in emerging and exotic diseases, invasive
species, agricultural genome and genetics, and food safety.
Emerging and Exotic Diseases, and Pests (to reduce
agricultural losses, protect the Nation from
bioterrorism, and help ensure food safety)
Emerging and reemerging infectious diseases and pests during the
past several years have become and remain a major public and animal
health concern. The globalization of trade, increased international
travel, climate change, intensive agriculture, and changing
agricultural demographics have created new opportunities for
reemergence and spread of infectious diseases and pests. Exotic (non-
native) pathogens or pests once introduced into the U.S. can explode
into an epidemic due to the absence of natural control agents and the
lack of resistance of host animals. For emerging diseases to be
detected and effectively controlled, the biology of the pathogens,
pests, and parasites must be researched and strategies developed to
limit their establishment and spread.
ARS is requesting a total increase of $4,358,000, which includes an
increase of $3,750,000 for preventing and controlling emerging exotic
and domestic infectious diseases of livestock and aquaculture,
controlling livestock pests, and developing vaccines for brucellosis in
wildlife, and an increase of $608,000 to prevent and control emerging
and exotic plant diseases. The proposed animal and plant disease
research will lead to better diagnostic tests and improved control
technologies and practices resulting in reduced production losses. It
will also help ensure that the U.S. food supply remains the safest,
healthiest, and least costly in the world.
United States agriculture is also extremely vulnerable to a
deliberate introduction of highly infectious diseases and pests,
particularly foreign diseases not endemic to the U.S. A recent GAO
report cites that certain countries are engaged in developing
biological warfare agents directed at animal and plant agriculture.
Disease pathogens that could be used include highly infectious viruses,
bacteria, nematodes, fungi, and insects that attack major commodities,
such as cattle, swine, poultry, cereals, vegetables, and fruits. The
malicious introduction of these pathogens would affect consumer
confidence in the safety of their food and could have profound impacts
on the U.S. economy. The potential impact of an outbreak of foot and
mouth disease in cattle and swine in the U.S. was vividly demonstrated
in 1997 in Taiwan where eight million pigs had to be destroyed causing
$5 billion in economic losses, environmental consequences, and a total
shutdown of their swine exports.
To protect U.S. agriculture from its vulnerability to acts of
bioterrorism, ARS is requesting an increase of $10,000,000. Terrorist
acts against U.S. agriculture have the potential to cost tens of
billions of dollars and many lives. It is therefore necessary to take
preventive action now. Research will focus on developing a forensic
capability to rapidly identify highly infectious pathogens that have
been turned into biological weapons. Also, new tools will be developed
which will facilitate the epidemiological mapping of disease outbreaks
and tracking of disease agents to their geographic origin. This new
generation of technology will also substantially augment our
traditional mission and capacity to deal with animal diseases that
naturally or accidentally enter the U.S. and threaten the livestock
industry.
Invasive Species (to detect and eradicate new invading weed
and pest species)
Invasive weeds and other pest species cost the Nation over $122
billion a year. At last count, there were more than 30,000 invasive
species in the U.S.--they impact production agriculture, organic
farming, the environment, and other plant and animal species. For
example, weeds such as purple loosestrife, leafy spurge, salt cedar,
Brazilian Pepper, yellow starthistle, water hyacinth, downy brome, and
melaleuca infest at least 100 million acres in the U.S. Arthropod
pests, such as the silverleaf whitefly, Asian longhorned beetle, and
Russian aphid destroy 13 percent of crop production each year. About
one half of the endangered plants in the Nation are at risk because of
invasive species. In 1999, the President signed an Executive Order on
Invasive Species directing agencies to increase their efforts to detect
and eradicate incipient populations and prevent invasive species from
entering the U.S. Many Members of this Subcommittee are aware of these
problems in your own States and districts.
In addressing the growing invasive species problem, ARS is
requesting an increase of $4,300,000. Research will be directed toward
developing pathogens for biological control of invasive weeds and
insects. In addition, integrated management systems will be developed
for weeds such as purple loosestrife. Also, new biological information,
and the systematics of key groups of invasive weeds and insects will be
developed. The proposed research will aid APHIS and other regulatory
agencies, and State land managers in managing established invasive
species, and detecting and eradicating new invading species.
Agricultural Genome (to enhance the quality and safety of
the food supply, and strengthen U.S. agricultural
competitiveness in world markets)
The U.S. agricultural system faces formidable challenges, from new
pests and diseases, water and soil pollution and degradation, climate
events, and less land available for farming. These challenges can only
be met by harnessing the inherent potential of genetic resources. More
rapid and efficient methods are necessary to identify and manipulate
the useful properties of genes and genomes. New methods termed
``genomics,'' rely on more detailed, accurate, and comprehensive
knowledge of genetic organization and function. This will enable
scientists to examine the genetic potential of plants, animals, and
beneficial organisms.
ARS is proposing an increase of $5,350,000 to develop bioinformatic
tools, biological databases, and information management technology for
plants. The research includes manipulating the function of important
genes in crops, and developing new genomic approaches for improving
economically important traits in livestock and poultry. In addition,
marker genes of pathogenic microorganisms will be characterized to
develop disease prevention in plants and animals. The proposed research
will provide the means for maintaining and enhancing the quality and
safety of the U.S. food supply. It will also strengthen the Nation's
agricultural competitiveness in world markets by ensuring continued
improvement of plants and animals.
Agricultural Genetic Resources (to protect the Nation's
agriculture from genetic vulnerability, and
strengthen U.S. agricultural competitiveness)
The United States needs a comprehensive program to maintain: crop
germplasm; genetic diversity within animal species which provide
abundant high quality food and fiber; and microbial germplasm,
including pathogens and microorganisms, which may be useful in
bioconversion, bioremediation, or biocontrol. Genetic diversity is
critical for further improvement of production efficiency and for the
protection of valuable germplasm from catastrophic events including
climate change and disease epidemics.
ARS is requesting an increase of $6,600,000 to provide a program
which will secure and maintain critical plant, animal, and microbial
germplasm. Specifically, ARS will identify threatened germplasm and
incorporate it into USDA/ARS gene banks. The germplasm will be
preserved, documented, characterized, evaluated, and enhanced. The
proposed germplasm program will protect U.S. agriculture from genetic
vulnerability, and strengthen U.S. competitiveness in agricultural,
pharmaceutical, and industrial markets by ensuring continued genetic
improvement through an optimal pool of genetic resources.
Food Safety (to control pathogens and reduce food-related
illnesses/deaths)
Food safety is a National Presidential priority. The Department is
committed to providing consumers with the safest, highest quality food
possible. It recognizes that food safety problems must be addressed and
solved from the ``farm-to-the-table.'' ARS' research begins at the
preharvest stage of crop and animal production. It is there, during the
production and transportation of animals to slaughter, that exposure
and infection to pathogens takes place. This is a major source of
contamination in meat-based foods. During production pathogens also
contaminate harvested fruits and vegetables. Similarly, toxic metals
from soils and allergens contaminate various commodities.
ARS is requesting a total increase of $5,720,000. Within that total
is a proposed increase of $2,860,000 for preharvest food safety
research to develop methods for controlling pathogens during
preslaughter and transportation, and develop technologies to extend the
useful life of antibiotics. Toxins, heavy metals, and allergens which
contaminate food products will also be researched. In addition,
management and animal health practices will be developed to reduce
Salmonella enteritidis on and in shell eggs.
Postharvest operations--slaughter and processing--are also key
links in the food safety chain. Postharvest operations can provide an
opportunity for removing or inactivating pathogens previously acquired
during production. Pathogens can rapidly develop resistance to
antimicrobials and traditional control measures.
ARS is also requesting an increase of $2,860,000 for postharvest
food safety research. The proposed research will develop methods to:
control pathogens in meat, poultry, and fruits and vegetables; detect
pathogens and residues during processing and storage; and improve egg
sanitation technologies and storage conditions to reduce contamination.
Also, an Internet-based food safety research information system will be
developed as part of the Food Safety Research Information Office
established at the National Agricultural Library. The proposed pre- and
postharvest food safety research will result in fewer pathogens in the
production and processing environment thereby reducing consumer food-
related illnesses and deaths.
Food Quality Protection Act (to reduce the use of
pesticides which are harmful to humans)
The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) requires a change in the
standard for evaluating pesticides from an acceptable risk/benefit to a
reasonable expectation of no harm. This change in the evaluation
standard is likely to affect the permissible uses in agriculture of
many pesticides that can have toxic effects on humans.
USDA policy already places high priority on the funding,
development, and testing of replacement technology for currently used
pesticides at risk of being taken off the market due to the new FQPA
tolerance standards. The Department is committed to implementation of
IPM practices on at least 75 percent of the Nation's crop acreage. In
addition, USDA supports efforts to develop areawide pest management
programs using biointensive IPM approaches, IR-4 minor use pesticide
programs, biological control agents, methyl bromide alternatives, and
other IPM component technology.
In implementing FQPA, ARS is requesting an increase of $4,537,000.
Research would be directed at expanding areawide IPM programs
demonstrating alternatives to at-risk pesticides. IPM systems will be
developed for fruits and vegetables treated with organophosphates and
carbamates, and for pests under large scale control/eradication
programs. In addition, methyl bromide alternatives will be developed
and registered. The proposed research will develop new technologies and
practices as substitutes for ``hard'' pesticides (e.g., organophosphate
and carbamate pesticides) and provide new, target specific biointensive
approaches to control crop and other agricultural pests. The research
will also contribute to fulfilling the Department's commitment to
implement IPM practices or methods on 75 percent of the Nation's crop
acreage. Within the amount requested, ARS is also requesting an
increase of $1,500,000 to increase its support of the Department's
Office of Pest Management Policy. Established in 1997, this office
provides a coordinated and rapid response to FQPA data analysis needs,
interacts with grower groups, and coordinates USDA programs with EPA.
A healthy and well nourished population
A healthy diet is critical to an individual's growth and
development, susceptibility to diseases, and their quality of life.
Poor nutrition underlies many chronic conditions, such as obesity,
cardiovascular disease, cancer, osteoporosis, and diabetes. Research is
only now beginning to reveal how nutrients and genes interact to cause
various diseases. Under this goal, ARS is recommending in its fiscal
year 2001 budget the largest increase for any one program area to
support the President's Human Nutrition Research Initiative.
Human Nutrition (to reduce nutritionally-related diseases,
and produce a more healthy, productive population)
The goal of the President's Human Nutrition Research Initiative is
to improve the overall health of the American people by reducing health
care costs and enhancing the quality of life by further defining the
relationship between diet and health; improving the scientific basis of
more effective food assistance programs; generating a more nutritious
food supply; improving resistance to infection and immune disorders;
promoting changes in diet by understanding the factors that affect food
choices; and extending dietary guidance to nutritionally vulnerable
groups by determining how food consumption at points in the life cycle
affects risk of disease. In the first phase of the initiative, emphasis
was placed on the dietary requirements of children. In the second
phase, cutting edge research approaches such as molecular biology were
applied to human nutrition to identify the role of nutrients in
promoting health.
In this phase of the Initiative, ARS is requesting an increase of
$17,250,000. Emphasis will be on the identification and measurement of
the active components of a healthy diet; determination of the factors
that maintain healthy body weight; role of nutrition in bone growth and
maintenance; importance of diet in maintaining optimal neurological
function throughout life; effects of diet on the immune function; role
of nutrition throughout the life cycle; and development of nutritional
biomarkers. In addition, the National Nutrient Databank (the database
of foods consumed in the U.S. and the foundation for food composition
tables) will be updated. The proposed research will lead to a reduction
in the number of nutritionally-related diseases, and to a more healthy
and productive population. This in turn will lead to a decrease in the
staggering costs (estimated in excess of $200 billion per year)
associated with the treatment of nutritionally-related diseases.
An agricultural system that protects natural resources and the
environment
Agricultural growth and enhanced productivity must be balanced with
maintaining and preserving the Nation's natural resources. One of ARS'
goals is to provide a better understanding of the complex interactions
between agricultural production and the soil, water, and air. Under
this goal, ARS is recommending in its fiscal year 2001 budget new and
expanded research initiatives in global climate change, climate change
technology, air quality, and integrated science for ecological
challenges.
Global Climate Change (to reduce the harmful effects of
global climate change on U.S. agriculture)
Agriculture is vulnerable to changes in climate. Rising
temperatures and changing amounts and patterns of precipitation can
reduce crop yields. A changing climate can also alter the competitive
relationships between weeds and crops, and the frequency of insect
infestations and the severity of weed infestations which challenges our
ability to control pests. Strategies and technologies need to be
developed so that we better understand the effects of climate change
thereby mitigating their impacts on agriculture.
ARS is requesting an increase of $7,900,000 for research on the
effects of climate change on food availability; the impacts of
atmospheric and climate change on the Alaskan agro-ecosystem; and the
carbon cycle research initiative. In the carbon cycle initiative, ARS
will collaborate with other Federal agencies in determining how farmers
and ranchers can store carbon in agricultural soils to improve air
quality. Rates of emissions of greenhouse gases associated with crop,
livestock, and forage production systems will also be documented, and
technologies to reduce them will be developed.
ARS will also conduct U.S. global change research program national
assessment activities. Assessments assemble and synthesize scientific
results, help increase interaction among scientists and the public, and
aid in identifying gaps in knowledge. The national assessments and the
other proposed global climate change initiatives will help mitigate the
effects of global climate change. Accurate measurements of greenhouse
gas emissions or rates of storage in agricultural soils will reduce
climate change and assist in the prediction of future greenhouse gas
concentrations.
Climate Change Technology (to expand biomass for energy,
and predict/adapt to global change impacts)
By making changes in production and land use practices, agriculture
can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Practices such as, biomass
conversion to fuels, improved animal management and waste utilization,
conservation tillage, and other management practices (e.g., cover
crops, buffers, etc.) will enhance long-term storage of carbon in
soils. These practices will also increase energy efficiency, and
improve soil tilth, fertility, and water holding capacity.
ARS is requesting an increase of $7,000,000 to develop new
technologies both for predicting and adapting to global change impacts,
and for improving and expanding biomass for energy. The proposed
research will provide farmers and ranchers with the means to adapt
agricultural production methods in response to climate change.
Expanding biomass for energy will contribute to sustainability,
environmental quality, and efficiency of crop and livestock production,
and forestall potential climate change.
Air Quality (to improve air quality)
With the adoption of the EPA's National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, the role of agriculture in polluting air came under greater
scrutiny. Concerns about the regulation of agricultural air quality
prompted the establishment of the Agricultural Air Quality Task Force.
The Task Force has identified the emission of particulates (which
penetrate human lungs and cause various aliments) as its number one
priority.
ARS is requesting an increase of $2,000,000 to develop new
knowledge on particulate matter and precursors. New knowledge will also
be developed on the emission and control of animal manure odors. In
addition, research will be conducted on protecting agricultural crops
from the effects of tropospheric ozone. The proposed research will make
it possible to develop technologies to control or mitigate dust and
odor emissions. Also, practices will be established to protect crops
from ozone damage.
Integrated Science for Ecological Challenges (to protect
the Nation's soil and water resources)
Changes in land and resource use, the introduction of invasive
species, the input of pollutants and excessive nutrients, extreme
natural events, and changes in atmospheric and climate conditions--
these stresses and their cumulative effect on the Nation's ecological
systems is poorly understood and raises numerous questions. The Federal
agencies in the National Science and Technology Council, Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources propose to begin addressing these
major ecological questions under a broad coordinated effort entitled,
``Integrated Sciences for Ecological Challenges.''
ARS is requesting an increase of $6,800,000 under this initiative
to protect the Nation's natural resources, by improving livestock
manure management systems to protect evironmental quality; controlling
eutrophication, harmful algal blooms, and hypoxia in waterways;
restoring riparian zones and coastal habitats; developing practices for
managing agricultural production while protecting soil and water
resources; and conducting integrated ecosystem risk assessments. The
overall goal of the proposed research is to protect the Nation's
natural resources.
Enhancing information systems
The National Agricultural Library (NAL) is the largest agricultural
library in the world. Its print and electronic collections support the
information needs of farmers, agricultural producers, researchers,
policymakers, educators, and others. Under this goal, ARS is
recommending in its fiscal year 2001 budget enhanced support of its
research and information programs.
Enhanced Support of Research and Information Programs (to
preserve and increase access to agricultural
research information)
The number and variety of electronic information resources in
agriculture continues to increase. At the same time, NAL must improve
access to printed agricultural literature currently maintained in its
collection. NAL also must initiate a digital archiving program to
ensure that the Department's digital publications are accessible in the
future.
ARS is requesting an increase of $2,000,000 for increasing access
to research information; updating and improving NAL's information
delivery system; and preserving USDA digital publications. The proposed
funding increase will ensure that NAL will be able to meet the growing
needs of the agricultural community for rapid delivery of print and
electronic information.
PAY COSTS
The Agency is requesting $8,500,000 to cover part of the
anticipated fiscal year 2001 pay raise. These funds are essential to
the ongoing research effort of the Agency. The absorption of these
costs over the last several years has eroded resources which has
hindered the Agency's ability to hire new scientists, and procure
equipment, materials, etc., which are critically needed to carry out
ARS' research programs.
PROJECT TERMINATIONS
ARS is recommending no new funding for earmarked projects funded in
fiscal year 2000, as well as lower priority projects. Resources that
would have gone to these activities would be able to be allocated to
high priority initiatives of national importance. None of the
reductions in lower priority projects will be taken from the
Administration's priority initiative areas.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Many of ARS' laboratories are inefficient and outdated. Major
systems (i.e., water, heating, air-conditioning, electrical) in many of
the laboratories have long passed their useful life expectancy and fail
to meet building code requirements. The modernization or replacement of
these laboratories which began several years ago remains a high
priority.
In fiscal year 2001, the Agency recommends under its Buildings and
Facilities account $39,300,000 for the following modernization
projects:
National Animal Disease Center, Ames, Iowa
The Center serves as USDA's primary animal health research
facility. Its research is widely recognized as preventing and
controlling animal diseases, and protecting the food supply. Scientists
at the Center have developed vaccines for porcine parvovirus, bovine
viral diarrhea virus, and brucellosis, and have developed diagnostic
tools for hog cholera, bovine tuberculosis, and scrapie.
In fiscal year 2001, $9,000,000 is requested to plan and modernize
facilities for ARS and APHIS. Specifically, ARS is requesting
$8,000,000 to complete planning and design for new Biosafety Level 2
and 3 Animal Isolation Facilities, and $1,000,000 for utility
distribution system improvements to support the new facilities. These
facilities will be located on the NADC grounds and will be used by both
ARS and APHIS scientists.
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, Maryland
The largest agricultural center in the world, it is renowned for
its prominent scientists, quality of research, and contributions to
agriculture. Its research programs encompass natural resources and
environmental sciences, plant sciences, livestock and poultry sciences,
and human nutrition. In fiscal year 2000, ARS received an appropriation
of $13,000,000, primarily for modernization of the Beltsville Human
Nutrition Research Center. In fiscal year 2001, the Agency is
requesting an increase of $13,300,000 to complete construction of the
Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center and for the modernization of
the Building 307.
Western Regional Research Center, Albany, California
The Center conducts research principally on food safety and new
agricultural uses. Research, however, is hampered by facilities which
were built before World War II. In fiscal year 2000, ARS received
$2,600,000 for the design of a new Research and Development Facility.
In fiscal year 2001, the Agency is requesting $4,900,000 for the first
phase of construction of the Research and Development Facility.
Plum Island Animal Disease Center, Greenport, New York
The Center conducts state-of-the-art research and diagnostic work
on foreign diseases that are an ongoing threat to U.S. livestock.
Located on an island off Long Island, the Center is the only site
authorized by Congress to carry out such research. In fiscal year 2001,
ARS is requesting $7,000,000 for continuation of the modernization of
existing facilities at the Center. No new construction is being
proposed.
National Agricultural Library, Beltsville, Maryland
NAL is the largest agricultural library in the world and serves as
a national resource for access to information on agriculture and
related sciences. Built in 1968, many of the systems in the building
are unreliable and require replacement. A 1991 facility condition study
identified numerous mechanical, electrical, and architectural
deficiencies. In fiscal year 2001, ARS is requesting $1,770,000 to
continue modernization projects currently underway.
U.S. National Arboretum, Washington, D.C.
The Arboretum was created by an Act of Congress in 1927 as a center
for research and education on plant sciences. Since 1959, the Arboretum
has been open to the public. Each year, thousands of residents and
tourists who visit Washington, D.C. visit the Arboretum. A 1990
facility condition study of the Administration Building (which includes
offices, laboratories, an auditorium, and an herbarium) found numerous
building and system deficiencies. In fiscal year 2001, ARS is
requesting $530,000 in design funds for the modernization of the
Administration Building, and $2,800,000 for replacement of the
irrigation distribution system leading into the collections and
research plots, and for installation of an automated control system.
SUMMARY
In the span of a century, the face of American agriculture has
changed dramatically--horses and mules have given way to power farm
machinery, precision agriculture, remote sensing technologies, and
bioinformatics. What has been achieved through agricultural research is
truly remarkable.
As we begin a new century, we look ahead to the new opportunities
and challenges that lie ahead. For the discoveries and advances that
have not been made, ARS is hard at work. ARS is committed to solving
the agricultural problems that affect both producers and consumers, and
to improving the life of each and every American.
I will be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have
regarding ARS' budget request.
______
ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUSAN E. OFFUTT, ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to present the proposed fiscal year 2001 budget for the
Economic Research Service (ERS).
MISSION
The Economic Research Service provides economic and other social
science research and analysis on efficiency, efficacy, and equity
issues related to agriculture, food, natural resources, and rural
development to improve public and private decision making.
BUDGET
The agency's request for 2001 is $55.4 million, a net decrease of
$10 million from the 2000 appropriation. The net decrease consists of
four parts: a $1 million increase for an initiative on structural
changes and concentration in food and agriculture; a $.5 million
increase to support a global research and outreach initiative; a $.7
million increase for a study on carbon sequestration; and a $12.2
million decrease for evaluations of food stamp, child nutrition, and
WIC programs. Funding for these evaluation studies in 2001 is included
in the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) budget.
ERS CONTRIBUTIONS TO MISSION AREA GOALS
ERS shares five general goals with its fellow agencies in the
Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area: (1) a highly
competitive agricultural production system, (2) a safe and secure food
supply, (3) a healthy and well nourished population, (4) harmony
between agriculture and the environment, and (5) enhanced economic
opportunity and quality of life for all Americans. These goals are
fully consistent with the U.S. Department of Agriculture mission.
Goal I: The agricultural production system is highly competitive in the
global economy
ERS helps the U.S. food and agriculture sector effectively adapt to
changing market structure and post-WTO and post-NAFTA trade conditions
by analyzing the linkage between domestic and global food and commodity
markets and the implications of alternative domestic and international
policies on competitiveness. ERS economists analyze factors that drive
change in the structure and performance of domestic and global food and
agriculture markets; provide economic assessments of structural change
and competition in the food industry; analyze how global environmental
change, international environmental treaties and agreements, and
foreign trade restrictions affect U.S. agricultural production,
exports, and imports; and provide economic analyses that determine how
fundamental commodity market relationships are adjusting to changing
trade, domestic policy, and structural conditions.
ERS will continue to work closely with the World Agricultural
Outlook Board and other USDA agencies to provide short- and long-term
projections of U.S. and world agricultural production, consumption, and
trade. Cooperative efforts will seek to understand how commodity price
and farm income variability affect market performance and interact with
Federal policies and programs. ERS has sustained the frequency of
reporting on commodities' outlooks, while strengthening the analysis
that leads to a better understanding of reported observations and
reporting needs in a sector that is witnessing profound structural
change. In addition, ERS will continue to work closely with the Foreign
Agricultural Service and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to
assure that agricultural negotiations under the auspices of the World
Trade Organization are successful and advantageous for U.S.
agriculture. Research will target issues that prevented the
Administration from fully meeting its goals for the Seattle-round of
WTO trade negotiations--namely, the interrelationships involved among
biotechnology, intellectual property rights, environmental concerns,
and agricultural trade. ERS' December 1998 publication of Agriculture
in the WTO demonstrated the Agency's ability to provide critical
information on the benefits of earlier trade rounds and the potential
gains from further liberalization of key markets. ERS experts will
provide critical technical expertise in taking a more in-depth look at
China's evolving role in world agricultural markets, including its
potential membership in the WTO. ERS will conduct research designed to
significantly improve the understanding among decision makers of the
changing structure of the food marketing chain (for example, the
implications for producers of the increasing replacement of open
markets by contractual arrangements and vertical integration). ERS will
also continue to analyze the use and effectiveness of alternative
marketing strategies and risk management tools in mitigating farm
income risk. ERS' 1999 publication of Managing Risk in Farming:
Concepts, Research, and Analysis demonstrates the broad and deep
knowledge that ERS brings to addressing the risk concerns of the
sector.
ERS analyses can help guide and evaluate resource allocation and
management of public sector agricultural research--a key to maintaining
increases in productivity that underlie a strong competitive position
for U.S. farmers. ERS economists track and seek to understand the
determinants of public and private spending on agricultural R&D;
evaluate the returns from those expenditures; and consider the most
effective roles for public and private sector research entities.
Structural change, coordination and concentration in food and
agriculture
The request for an increase of $1,056,000 in fiscal year 2001 is
intended to greatly enhance research and the dissemination of
information related to structural changes within the food and fiber
system. These changes within the market structure can have far reaching
impacts on farmers, consumers, rural communities, and U.S.
competitiveness in international agricultural markets. Through this
initiative, ERS will shed light on the appropriate role of agricultural
policy in this new structural environment while looking at new ways to
examine markets and conduct aggressive data collection programs. ERS
will also examine opportunities for small farmers and rural communities
to remain viable in the changing market structure.
Global Research and Outreach Initiative
The request for an increase of $500,000 is part of an REE mission
area interagency initiative to focus research and outreach programs on
international issues of vital interest to the U.S. food and agriculture
sector and on alleviation of the causes of global food insecurity. ERS
will develop programs which are designed to strengthen research and
outreach capacity in developing countries. Through collaborative
activities with institutions in selected developing and former Soviet
Block countries, ERS will be able to access information needed to
support substantive research on challenges to developing a better
understanding of the global agricultural market within which the U.S.
food and agriculture sector functions. In the process, institutional
and professional relationships will develop that facilitate long term
exchanges and continued access to needed information and data.
Goal 2: The food production system is safe and secure
ERS focuses on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public
policies and programs designed to protect consumers from unsafe food by
analyzing the benefits of safer food and the costs of food safety
policies; efficient and cost-effective approaches to promote food
safety; and how agricultural production and processing practices affect
food safety, resource quality, and farm workers' safety. This research
helps government officials design more efficient and cost-effective
approaches to promote food safety. For example, ERS works closely with
various USDA agencies and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) on pathogen reduction efforts, including Hazard
Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP). The ERS research program
provides detailed and up-to-date appraisals of the benefits of safer
food, such as reducing medical costs and costs associated with
productivity losses from foodborne illnesses caused by microbial
pathogens. Specifically, in 1999 ERS used data provided by the CDC's
``FoodNet'' active surveillance system to update estimates of the costs
of foodborne disease caused by four major microbial pathogens
(estimated at $9.2 to $10.2 billion annually), and collaborated with
CDC staff to refine and update the methodology for measuring the cost
of foodborne disease. In fiscal year 1999, ERS established a new
extramural research program to measure the benefits of safer food. ERS
established a competitive selection process to award funding for
cooperative agreements in food safety research. ERS awarded grants to
Harvard University and the University of Wyoming to begin a multi-year
effort to apply state of the art economic analysis to develop national
estimates of the benefits of improving the safety of the Nation's food
supply. In addition, ERS has undertaken new research on the costs of
coming into compliance with various food safety policies, including
assessment of the distribution of costs across the food industry and
across different consumer demographic groups.
Understanding how food prices are determined is increasingly
important in responding to domestic and international market events and
opportunities that promote the security of the U.S. food supply. As the
farm share of the food dollar declines, accurate retail price forecasts
depend more heavily on understanding the marketing system beyond the
farmgate. ERS systematically examines the factors that help set retail
prices, including an assessment of the roles of the transportation,
processing, manufacturing, wholesaling and retailing sectors, the
impact of imports and exports, and linkages to the total economy.
Goal 3: The nation's population is healthy and well-nourished
ERS helps identify efficient and effective public policies that
promote consumers' access to a wide variety of high-quality foods at
affordable prices. ERS economists analyze factors affecting dietary
changes as well as trends in America's eating habits; assess impacts of
nutrition education and the implications for the individual, society
and agriculture; and provide economic evaluations of food nutrition and
assistance programs, such as factors determining changes in Food Stamp
program participation. In addition, ERS studies the implications for
producers and consumers of movement towards adoption of the dietary
guidelines, evolution of trade in food products, and the determinants
of food prices.
Analysis of nutrition education efforts considers what kinds of
information motivate changes in consumer behavior, the food cost of
healthy diets, the influence of food assistance programs on nutrition,
and the implications of healthy diets for the structure of the food
system. In 1999, ERS released the study, America's Eating Habits:
Changes and Consequences, which poses questions and answers on several
issues including: what are the economic costs associated with unhealthy
eating habits; how much do people know about nutrition; how do national
income and prices and demographic trends affect nutrient intake; and
how do Government programs and regulations influence food expenditures
and consumption. Since trade in high valued agricultural products now
exceeds the value of bulk commodity flows, ERS will spend more time to
disaggregate the components of these trade flows, understand their
relationships to international investment and strategic behavior of
U.S. food firms, and investigate the implications for U.S. consumers of
a globalized food marketplace.
Goal 4: Agriculture and the environment are in harmony
In this area, ERS research and analytical efforts in cooperation
with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) support
development of Federal farm, natural resource, and rural policies and
programs. Such efforts promote long-term sustainability goals, improved
agricultural competitiveness, and economic growth. This effort requires
analyses of the profitability and environmental impacts of alternative
production management systems in addition to the cost-effectiveness and
equity of public sector conservation policies and programs. ERS
analysts focus on evaluating the benefits and costs of agricultural and
environmental policies and programs in order to assess the relationship
between improvements in environmental quality and increases in
agricultural competitiveness. For example, in its 1999 publication
Economic Valuation of Environmental Benefits and the Targeting of
Conservation Programs: The Case of the CRP, ERS demonstrated that
targeting of land for inclusion in the Conservation Reserve Program
with the use of a new environmental benefits index approximately
doubled the benefits of outdoor activities affected by the CRP--
particularly freshwater-based recreation and wildlife viewing. The ERS
research report, Economics of Water Quality Protection from Nonpoint
Sources (released in November 1999), compares and contrasts five
different approaches to the prevention or resolution of the type of
water quality problems most frequently associated with agriculture.
This serves as a guide to agriculturally-related program development
under the Clean Water Act. ERS is working with NRCS to provide a
combination of economic, farm structural, and geographic information to
inform ongoing decision making about the regulation of animal waste.
ERS is putting increasing emphasis on understanding and analyzing
trends in adoption of genetically modified crops and the emergence of
markets for both genetically modified and non-genetically modified
commodities--becoming a leader in the public sector in releasing new
and timely information on this topic. For example, ERS was the first
government agency to provide and interpret survey data on the extent of
adoption of genetically engineered soybeans, cotton, and corn. This
included information on impacts on pesticide use, crop yields, and net
returns.
Carbon sequestration initiative
This initiative will focus on the economic potential for domestic
carbon sequestration and control of greenhouse gases (GHG) in
agriculture, the use of economic incentives to encourage carbon
sequestration on agricultural lands, and the potential to target USDA
conservation programs to promote GHG mitigation activities in the farm
sector. A request of $700,000 for this initiative would allow ERS to
analyze the economic potential of alternative practices that increase
soil carbon levels and identify the most efficient policies to
facilitate adoption of soil carbon building practices. It would also
enable ERS to collaborate with researchers around the world to
incorporate estimates of carbon sequestration in global economic
models, as well as to consider the potential for other GHG mitigation
efforts on agriculture. This would build on modeling work to estimate
the impacts of climate change on agriculture which links to the broader
issue of threats to global agricultural sustainability such as water
quantity and quality and land constraints and soil degradation.
Goal 5: Enhanced economic opportunity and quality of life for rural
Americans
The ERS contribution to this goal is based on analysis that
identifies how investment, employment opportunities and job training,
and demographic trends affect rural America's capacity to prosper in
the global marketplace. ERS economists analyze rural financial markets
and how the availability of credit (particularly Federal credit) and
public spending, taxes, and regulations influence rural economic
development. ERS analyzes the changing size and characteristics of
rural and farm populations and the implications of these changes on the
performance of rural economies. In addition, ERS studies the economic
structure and performance of non-farm economic activities in rural
areas, including the rebound in population growth in non-metropolitan
counties.
ERS will also monitor rural earnings and labor market trends with
emphasis on regional and other disaggregations in order to provide
insight into the determinants of variation in trends among rural
counties. Such work should yield a better understanding of the factors
that promote rural vitality and the opportunities for effective public
sector intervention.
Because the effects of changes in welfare programs may vary between
rural and urban residents, ERS social scientists will track
implementation of recent program changes to understand impacts unique
to rural residents. In particular, ERS analysis can help anticipate
changes in participation across assistance programs for rural housing
and for food security. For example, ERS has conducted the first
nationally representative sample survey of participants in USDA's
Section 502 rural housing program. Responses indicated that without the
Section 502 program, 90 percent of borrowers thought it would have
taken longer than 2 years, if ever, for them to be able to buy a
comparable home. Another opportunity for understanding whether rural
America faces unique circumstances will come with analysis of a
recently-completed survey designed to determine characteristics of the
rural manufacturing sector.
ERS continues to monitor the financial situation of the farm sector
through establishing farm business organization and performance
benchmarks. This task includes study of the financial position of
farmers who employ technological advances and innovative risk
management strategies in their businesses, compared with the financial
position of farmers who use more traditional approaches. ERS has
developed and widely disseminated a new farm typology that goes beyond
the traditional classification of farms by sales class alone to a
grouping that is much more reflective of operators' expectations from
farming, stage in their life cycle, and dependence on agriculture. The
development of the typology brings new understanding about the
diversity of the U.S. farm community and the factors that can enhance
success among small and minority-owned farms.
CUSTOMERS, PARTNERS, AND STAKEHOLDERS
The ultimate beneficiaries of ERS's program are the American people
whose well-being is improved by informed public and private
decisionmaking leading to more effective resource allocation. ERS
shapes its program and products principally to serve key decision
makers who routinely make or influence public policy and program
decisions. This clientele includes White House and USDA policy
officials and program administrators/managers; the U.S. Congress; other
Federal agencies and State and local government officials; and domestic
and international environmental, consumer, and other public
organizations, including farm and industry groups interested in public
policy issues.
ERS depends heavily on working relationships with other
organizations and individuals to accomplish its mission. Key partners
include: the National Agricultural Statistics Service for primary data
collection; universities for research collaboration; the media as
disseminators of ERS analyses; and other government agencies and
departments for data information and services.
CLOSING REMARKS
I appreciate the support that this Committee has given ERS in the
past and look forward to continue working with you and your staff to
ensure that ERS makes the most effective and appropriate use of the
public resources. Thank you.
______
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. CHARLES W. LAUGHLIN, ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to present the proposed fiscal year 2001 budget for the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES),
one of four agencies in the Research, Education, and Economics (REE)
mission area of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). I
am especially honored as this is my first opportunity to submit
testimony to this Committee.
I have been the Administrator of CSREES for a little over eight
months, having come to CSREES from the land-grant university system.
Through the years I spent in that great system, first as a student and
then as an educator, I gained an appreciation for the strong
partnership the agency has forged with the land-grant system, other
colleges and universities, and public and private research and
education organizations.
Over the years, I have witnessed how funding from the broad
portfolio of CSREES programs has taken scientific discovery from
conception to application. Formula funds have leveraged dollars from
other sources, provided the start-up funds needed for an investigator
to establish a research program and obtain the results needed to
compete successfully in a competitive program, and allowed for a rapid
response to an emerging problem. Competitively funded research from the
National Research Initiative has supported individual investigators
undertaking basic research aimed at generating new knowledge. Finally,
research results were applied to real life problems through the
Cooperative Extension System's outreach efforts. All of these efforts
were undertaken in an environment which prepared students to meet the
ongoing needs of agriculture, the environment, individuals and
communities.
The broad portfolio of CSREES programs, whether formula based or
competitively awarded, ensure that research leads to the transfer and
implementation of practical outcomes. With this broad portfolio as a
base, the strong Federal, state, and university partnership has
supported great successes that have far reaching impacts on the food we
eat, the environment in which we live, and the quality of life of our
citizens. For example: In an Animal Health Program in the School of
Veterinary Medicine at the University of Minnesota, three investigators
teamed up to study three important pathogens, Pasteurella multocida (a
multispecies animal pathogen of major national importance),
Cryptosporidium (primarily a disease of cattle causing morbidity in
calves, but also an opportunistic cause of disease in humans), and
Avian pneumovirus (a new and emerging disease of turkeys). University
and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds supported the
establishment of a gene sequencing facility. The research on
Pasteurella and the Pneumovirus was extended by a grant from private
industry, while CSREES formula funds were used to support the initial
gene sequencing. These preliminary studies, in turn, led to successful
grant applications to the National Research Initiative (NRI) and NIH.
The NRI grant funds provided the sequencing of the entire Pasteurella
genome, one of the first non-viral animal pathogens to have its entire
genetic blueprint deciphered. The practical outcomes of this work have
been enormous. First, for all three organisms, there has been the
development of practical diagnostic kits and experimental vaccines
based on knowledge gained from gene sequences. In the case of Avian
pneumovirus, experiment station support allowed an accurate and
sensitive diagnostic kit to be available within three months of
obtaining the genome sequence. Two vaccines were developed within 12
months.
As a result of the development of the diagnostic kits and vaccines,
extension professionals were able to work with producers to confine the
spread of the disease and prevent a national epidemic. This example
indicates how a variety of funding mechanisms may be necessary to take
discovery research from conception to application. In particular, it
demonstrates how formula funds provided to research directors can
underwrite a new study such that it quickly becomes competitive. It
shows how funds from one source can be used to leverage funds from
another, and how both research and extension formula monies can be used
to respond quickly to an emerging and potentially devastating disease
that began at the local level but showed every likelihood of becoming a
national catastrophe.
The questions before us involve not only important issues requiring
the application of hard data and science, as in the scenario described
above, but problems involving human behavior and motivation, complex
social systems, and personal values. These questions require an agency
that is engaged, and an engaged agency must be organized to step up to
today's and tomorrow's needs. The challenge to CSREES is to move from a
knowledge-dissemination model to an engagement model, developing and
sustaining mutually beneficial partnerships with a wide array of
constituents. The fiscal year 2001 budget strongly moves us in that
direction.
The fiscal year 2001 budget proposes an increase of approximately
2.3 percent in discretionary funds. CSREES is committed to seven
overarching themes in its fiscal year 2001 budget:
--Increases for competitively awarded grant programs such as the
$30.7 million increase for the NRI;
--Funding for targeted areas, including Biobased Products, Invasive
Species, and Pest Related issues;
--Integrated research, extension, and education activities, as
evidenced by an increase of $36.6 million increase in the
Integrated Activities Account;
--A balanced program portfolio, as evidenced by sustained support at
the fiscal year 2000 level for all formula programs;
--Expanded partnerships to reach diverse audiences through increases
in funding for the 1890 and 1994 land-grant institutions, as
well as for Hispanic-Serving Institutions; and through
increases in programs that support the USDA Civil Rights
Implementation Team Recommendations;
--Development of human capacity to address the need for a highly
trained cadre of quality scientists, engineers, managers, and
technical specialists in the food and fiber systems through
increased funding for the Higher Education Programs and
International Science and Education Grants; and
--Streamlined management and improved accountability of CSREES
programs through increases for the Research, Education, and
Economics Information System (REEIS), and through the
integration of research, extension, and education under certain
programs as intended in the Agricultural Research, Extension,
and Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA).
FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS
The fiscal year 2001 budget request is a conscious effort to
address concerns raised about the distribution of funding between
formula grant programs and competitive grant programs in the
Administration's fiscal year 2000 Budget. In order to reduce the
disparity in funding between formula and competitive grant programs,
the fiscal year 2000 budget proposed $200 million for the National
Research Initiative and $489 million for the six major formula programs
(a reduction from the fiscal year 1999 enacted level of $540 million).
In response to the concerns raised about this reduction, the fiscal
year 2001 budget has proposed to fund major formula programs at the
fiscal year 2000 enacted level of $542 million, and to request a more
modest funding level of $150 million for the NRI. We hope that the
Committee will recognize and respond to this action, and provide this
more modest increase for the NRI.
One of the most crucial variables in the food and fiber system is
scientific and professional human capital. The research and education
agenda of the future depends on a highly trained cadre of qualified
scientists, engineers, managers, and technical specialists. However,
the higher education institutions that produce this essential human
capital are confronted with two increasingly serious issues: expertise
development and institutional development. Increases are provided in
the fiscal year 2001 budget for several of the CSREES Higher Education
Programs. An increase of $2 million is provided for the Food and
Agricultural Sciences National Needs Graduate Fellowships Grants
Program to expand support for the recruitment and training of
outstanding graduate students in the food and agricultural sciences. An
increase of $1.65 million is provided for the Higher Education
Challenge Grants Program to enhance programs and capabilities for
educating baccalaureate students in priority food and agricultural
science areas, including food safety. An increase of $1 million is
provided for the Multicultural Scholars Program which will support
efforts to increase the multicultural diversity of the food and
agricultural scientific and professional workforce .
The CSREES budget request reflects USDA Civil Rights Action Team
recommendations to address disparities in funding and enhance the
Department's cooperative efforts with institutions of higher education
that are primarily devoted to the needs of minority students. An
increase of $650 thousand is provided for the Hispanic Serving
Institutions Education Grants program and an increase of $300 thousand
is provided for the 1890 Institutions Teaching and Research Capacity
Building Grants Program. CSREES is proposing an increase of $2.5
million for the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund to increase
the endowment which will increase the interest earned on the endowment
for use by the 1994 Institutions. CSREES also is proposing that the
1994 Institutions be authorized to use endowment income for facility
renovation and construction and will encourage the 1994 Institutions to
use the increased funding for that purpose. An increase of $0.5 million
is provided for the second year of the 1994 Institutions competitive
research program; an increase of $0.4 million is provided for the
Extension Services at 1994 Institutions program; and an increase of
$3.3 million is proposed for the Extension Indian Reservations Program
to enhance the ability of extension agents to provide educational
programs to isolated and under-served audiences on the reservations.
Additionally, eligibility under the Section 406 Integrated Authority,
first used in 2000 and for which a total of $76 million in 12 programs
is requested in 2001, is open to colleges and universities, including
the 1890 institutions.
Achieving sustained long-term improvement in the competitive
position of United States agriculture relies critically on the Federal
government's assurance that producers and marketers have access to the
basic tools for success. Studies have shown that successful producers
(farmers, ranchers, and foresters) are better educated, more apt to
adopt new technology, have lower costs of production, and take better
advantage of or have more opportunities for spreading production and
marketing risk across alternative enterprises and mechanisms, than
their less successful counterparts. The fiscal year 2001 CSREES budget
proposes a new $9.6 million Biobased Products Program that will
generate information and tools for farmers to grow, harvest, and handle
alternative crops, and for manufacturers to convert renewable, raw
materials to useful products for industry and/or consumers. The $4
million proposed for a new Small Farms Initiative will develop
research, education, and extension programs in appropriate marketing
strategies for small farms, business skills for small farmers, and help
beginning farmers establish viable farm operations and enterprises. A
proposed increase of almost $3.7 million will be focused on organic
farming under the research and extension components of the Sustainable
Agriculture Research and Education Program. An additional $1 million is
requested for a new program to develop and implement biologically based
pest management practices that mitigate the ecological, agronomical and
economic risks associated with the transition from conventional to
organic production systems.
Increases are proposed to support the development and application
of new technology and management practices to replace the traditional
pest controls that are at risk of being restricted or prohibited due to
the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). The budget proposes a
$6 million increase to support long-term development and implementation
of innovative pest management for major acreage crops, fruits, and
vegetables through an integrated research, education, and extension
competitive grants program. A $2 million increase is proposed for the
development of intermediate-term alternative pest controls for fruit
and vegetable crops to replace pesticides at risk of not meeting the
new FQPA requirements.
An additional $3 million is proposed for development of practical
management alternatives and technologies for commodities affected by
the methyl bromide phase-out now scheduled for 2005 under recent
amendments to the Clear Air Act. The budget includes an increase of
$1.5 million for a Regional Crop Information and Policy Centers program
that will address high priority pest management needs of Federal and
State regulators, extension personnel, and the public through a
coordinated effort at the regional level. These programs, in
conjunction with increased funding for the Critical Issues, Pest
Management Alternatives, Minor Crop Pest Management, Expert IPM
Decision Support System, Integrated Pest Management extension, and
Pesticide Applicator Training programs, as well as sustained funding
for the Integrated Pest Management research program, will ensure a more
safe and secure food and fiber system.
Establishing the scientific basis for optimal health, developing
knowledge of the eating habits of Americans, and modifying food intake
behavior are critical components to having a well-nourished population.
An increasingly important component to having a well-nourished
population is empowering our communities to build their capacities to
meet a greater share of their food needs. The fiscal year 2001 budget
proposes a new $5.25 million Anti-Hunger and Food Security Grants
Program to provide support to non-profit entities for projects that
reduce hunger, improve nutrition, bolster community food security, and
help families move from poverty to self-sufficiency. An increase of
$2.3 million above the 2000 appropriated level also is proposed for the
Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) to support
nutrition education programs aimed at meeting the needs of
undernourished segments of the population, especially children.
As a Nation, we increasingly value the environment--clean air and
water, unique ecosystems, and pristine land. We recognize that, given
the vast amounts of land being used in agricultural or forestry
production, we must ensure that our production practices, as well as
our public policies and programs affecting these practices, are
consistent with the dual objectives of promoting competitiveness while
preserving natural resources and environmental quality. To achieve
these goals, a better understanding of the complex interactions between
agricultural production and the environment is needed. An increase of
$1.5 million is proposed for a new Invasive Species Program in fiscal
year 2001 to target invasive species issues on an ecoregional basis.
Water Quality also is a serious national concern as reflected in the
President's Clean Water Action Plan. We propose an increase of $3.2
million for the integrated research and extension water quality program
that will support projects to investigate such issues as the linkage
between agricultural practices and outbreaks of harmful algal blooms,
which can lead to conditions that cause massive fish-kills, human
health problems, and significant economic losses to the seafood
industry.
Americans recognize that their quality of life depends largely on
economic, physical, and institutional factors affecting their families,
businesses, and communities. The fast pace of changes in these factors,
and their increasingly complex interactions, present a growing
challenge. CSREES, in partnership with the land-grant university
system, enhances the capabilities of individuals, families, and
communities to improve their quality of life. An increase of $5 million
is proposed for a new Youth Farm Safety Education and Certification
Program for support to States to provide formal safety training and
certification programs targeted to youth who are 16 to 17 years of age
and working in agriculture to help mitigate farm-related injuries and
deaths. The fiscal year 2001 budget proposes an increase of $1 million
for the Children, Youth, and Families at Risk program to enhance child
care programs for those segments of the population in greatest need,
including limited resource families, isolated farm and rural families,
and families needing child care during non-traditional hours, such as
families of migrant farm laborers.
CSREES strategies to ensure responsive and effective management of
USDA's extramural research, extension, and education programs include:
strengthening the Federal/State partnership; integrating research,
extension, and education activities as appropriate; improving
information management systems which are accessed by both internal and
external users; and participating in efforts to improve financial
management within USDA. The fiscal year 2001 budget proposes an
increase of $250 thousand for REEIS. Increased funding will help
further the implementation of the system to enable CSREES and the REE
mission area to meet the reporting requirements of the Government
Performance and Results Act and help facilitate implementation of
various reporting requirements and accountability provisions of AREERA.
The fiscal year 2001 Budget also includes mandatory funding of $120
million for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems
under Section 401 of AREERA for competitive research, education, and
extension grants to address critical and emerging agriculture issues.
Mandatory funding also is available under the Fund for Rural America,
where a minimum of $20 million is expected to be provided for a wide
range of research, extension, and education activities. The budget also
supports funding for the Community Food Projects grants program at $2.5
million (supported with mandatory funds provided by the Food and
Nutrition Service Food Stamp Program).
An increasing portion of Federal funds will be distributed
competitively to address the most critical needs of the agricultural
community and fund the most highly meritorious projects. The increases
proposed for competitive programs are partially offset by decreases in
non-competitive projects slated for reductions due to constrained
budget resources. The additional flexibility provided in AREERA, where
a portion of the formula funds can be used to support either research
or extension projects, allows states more authority to use Federal
funds in addressing their highest priority needs.
SUMMARY
The CSREES fiscal year 2001 budget represents a critical investment
in research, extension, education, and integrated programs that focus
on the development and delivery of tools to help agriculture compete in
the long-term, enhancement of the environment, improvement of human
health, and development of human capacity.
______
FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SAMUEL CHAMBERS, JR., ADMINISTRATOR
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this Subcommittee: I am
Samuel Chambers, Jr., the Administrator of the Food and Nutrition
Service (FNS). This is my second appearance before the Subcommittee
having come to FNS eighteen months ago from the Michigan Family
Independence Agency for Wayne County where I served as the Director. In
my previous position, I gained a substantial familiarity with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's nutrition assistance programs, particularly
how these programs operate at the State and local level. I wish to
thank you and the other Subcommittee members for the opportunity to
again appear before this Subcommittee to discuss the fiscal year 2001
budget request for FNS.
2001 BUDGET REQUEST
The FNS requests $36.3 billion in new budget authority for fiscal
year 2001, a level that will maintain and augment the long-standing
contribution of the Nation's nutrition assistance safety net in
fighting hunger and improving nutrition for children and low-income
people. The request meets the priorities described in FNS's Strategic
Plan, which was recently revised to better reflect the agency's
unifying mission and purposes. The new Strategic Plan, and the fiscal
year 2001 Annual Performance Plan which was derived from it, chart a
clear course toward the food security and nutrition outcomes that these
vital programs are intended to achieve, and to meeting the stewardship
responsibilities that are critical to continued public confidence in
Federal nutrition assistance. Both plans provide a strengthened
foundation for both internal management improvements, and better
coordination with our State and local nutrition assistance partners. I
look forward to working with you as we meet the challenges of
implementing these plans.
The fiscal year 2001 request includes funds to fully support all
Federal nutrition programs and to make targeted improvements to these
programs in a number of areas, some of which include the following.
--We propose to restore Food Stamp benefits to certain legal
immigrants who lost their eligibility as a result of Welfare
Reform;
--We are proposing simplification of certain food stamp rules related
to the ownership of vehicles, which would encourage work by
eliminating barriers to participation that result from owning a
reliable vehicle;
--We propose an array of management changes designed to improve
oversight in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP);
--The request includes the second increment of resources necessary to
carry out the School Breakfast Program Pilot which we initiated
in fiscal year 2000; and
--The request for the Women, Infants and Children's (WIC) Program is
sufficient to provide benefits for all those eligible who wish
to participate.
FOOD STAMP PROGRAM
The Food Stamp Program continues to serve the Nation as the primary
source of nutrition assistance for low-income Americans. The program's
mission is to ensure that low-income Americans have access to a
nutritious, healthful diet through nutrition assistance and education.
The resulting improvements in the nutritional status of low-income
Americans protects their health and strengthens the food and
agricultural economy. We are requesting $22.2 billion for the Food
Stamp Programs in the context of continuing strong economic conditions.
This estimate includes a benefit reserve of $1 billion, a $900 million
increase over fiscal year 2000 level. This benefit reserve will ensure
that funds can be made available quickly in the event of some
unforeseen circumstance, thereby ensuring the program's ability to get
food quickly to people who need it. Based on current economic forecasts
from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for fiscal year 2001:
--The average unemployment rate is projected to be 4.4 percent;
--Food Stamp Program participation is projected to average 18.8
million persons monthly under current law; and
--The average monthly benefit is projected to be $76.40 per person.
The cost of the Thrifty Food Plan for a family of four is projected
to rise about 2.9 percent from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001.
Participation is projected to rise by approximately 750,000, reflecting
a slight increase in the population eligible for benefits. In addition,
the request reflects our legislative proposal to restore benefits to
legal immigrants made ineligible for benefits under welfare reform.
Benefits would be restored: (1) to legal immigrants who resided in the
U.S. on August 22, 1996 and who subsequently reach age 65 benefiting
10,000 people by fiscal year 2005 ; and (2) to legal immigrant adults
who resided in the U.S. on August 22, 1996 and live with eligible
children, effective April 1, 2001, benefiting 155,000 people by fiscal
year 2005. Another proposal will allow States the option of conforming
food stamp rules on the treatment of vehicles to a more generous
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program (TANF) policy. This
change would help participants to access food stamp benefits and also
own a reliable vehicle so they may have the needed transportation to
obtain and keep a job. A final proposal in our request would allow
States to use the same rules for defining income in the Food Stamp
Program as in the Medicaid Program. Also included under the Food Stamp
account is $100 million authorized for the purchase of commodities for
The Emergency Food Assistance Program and $1.3 billion to fund the
Nutrition Assistance Program for Puerto Rico. Our request also includes
$76.5 million for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations
(FDPIR), a slight increase from fiscal year 2000 reflecting the
increased costs to the Indian Tribal Organizations (ITO) for
administration of the program. The FDPIR provides benefits to eligible
needy persons living on or near Indian reservations and was authorized
by the Food Stamp Act in response to the need for an alternate program
for those who do not have access to the regular Food Stamp Program. The
estimates for participation in the program during fiscal year 2001
average 133,300 persons monthly, the same level projected for fiscal
year 2000.
CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS
The purpose of the Child Nutrition Programs is to assist State and
local governments in providing healthful, nutritious meals to children
in public and nonprofit private schools, child care institutions,
including family day care homes and summer recreation programs. FNS is
requesting $9.5 billion which is slightly less than the level enacted
for fiscal year 2000. We estimate that in fiscal year 2001, the
requested funds, plus about $416 million in projected carryover funds
available from fiscal year 2000, will support:
--4.6 billion meals in the School Lunch Program;
--1.3 billion meals in the School Breakfast Program;
--1.8 billion meals in Child Care Centers and Day Care Homes;
--155 million meals in the Summer Food Program; and
--130 million half pints of milk in the Special Milk Program.
For fiscal year 2001, expected average daily participation in both
the National School Lunch Program (SLP) and the School Breakfast
Program (SBP) are projected to be somewhat higher than in fiscal year
2000--the SLP is up by 1.6 percent while the SBP is up by about 3.2
percent.
Included in our request for fiscal year 2001 is $6 million to fund
the final phase of the School Breakfast Program Pilot which was
initiated by FNS during fiscal year 2000. During the three year
project, FNS will carefully evaluate the effect of eating a free school
breakfast on children's behavior and educational performance. The final
increment of resources requested is sufficient to fully fund the
collection and analysis of data as well as food costs necessary to
complete the evaluation.
In the Child and Adult Care Food Program we project a 4.5 percent
increase (77 million) in meals served over fiscal year 2000. In an
effort to improve program integrity of the CACFP program, we are
proposing legislation that would net the agency estimated savings of
about $800 thousand in fiscal year 2001 and $115.2 million over a five
year period. The proposal will include measures to strengthen oversight
by sponsors, including prohibiting participation by sponsors that have
a track record of mismanagement in other government programs and
limiting and funds that may be retained by sponsors of child care
centers for administration. The proposal also includes measures to
strengthen State oversight, such as allowing States to retain a portion
of program funds recovered through audits and reviews. In addition, the
proposal would enhance Federal oversight and fund an evaluation of the
program's administrative reimbursement structure. This proposal
effectively addresses a number of issues raised in Federal audits which
can only be addressed through legislation. These resources would be a
complement to and reinforced by the additional funds for Child
Nutrition Program integrity enforcement which we are requesting in the
Food Program Administration (FPA) account.
Included as part of our child nutrition request is $2 million for
the Nutrition, Education and Training (NET) Program. I urge your
support for this modest amount which will help to fund the State
infrastructure that provides training for school food service personnel
in food service management, for instructing teachers in nutrition
education, and for teaching children about the relationship of
nutrition and health in order to help them make better food choices.
SCHOOL MEALS INITIATIVE AND TEAM NUTRITION
The School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children regulation updated
the nutrition standards for school meals and recognized the importance
of training and technical assistance for school food service
professionals and nutrition education for students. To implement this
regulation, the Food and Nutrition Service established the Team
Nutrition Initiative, a comprehensive, structured plan for improving
the nutritional standards of school meals as well as creating an
environment in the school dining area, in the classroom and in the
community that fosters good dietary practices among children and their
families. This initiative involves schools, parents and the community
in efforts to continuously improve school meals, and to promote the
health and education of 50 million school children in more than 96,000
schools Nationwide. Through training and technical assistance for
school food service professionals; fun, interactive nutrition education
for children and their parents; and support for school and community
leaders, Team Nutrition works to change current behaviors to be more
supportive of healthy eating and physical activity. These strategies
are accomplished through direct Federal operations as well as grants to
State agencies. In fiscal year 2001, we are requesting a total of $10
million for Team Nutrition, the same level appropriated for fiscal year
2000.
SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN
(WIC)
The purpose of the WIC Program is to improve the health of
nutritionally at-risk, low-income, pregnant, breastfeeding and
postpartum women, infants and children up to their fifth birthday. WIC
participants receive three primary benefits: nutritious food packages
designed to supplement their diets; nutrition education intended to
improve their nutrition practices; and referrals to other critical
health and social services.
We are requesting $4.1 billion in fiscal year 2001 to provide
nutrition education and food benefits to a monthly average of almost
7.5 million needy women, infants and children. This funding level is
sufficient to provide benefits for all those eligible who wish to
participate in the program.
WIC ELECTRONIC BENEFIT TRANSFER (EBT)
FNS is engaging in activities complementary to the Food Stamp
Program to advance EBT systems to improve program benefit delivery and
client services for the WIC Program. Our WIC Program request for fiscal
year 2001 includes $6 million which will be dedicated to EBT
development. Our goal is to implement EBT in States that have embarked
on planning and eventually expand EBT development to additional States.
Our current progress includes:
--A successful WIC/Food Stamp EBT pilot in Wyoming which resulted in
the State's decision to proceed with implementing the EBT
system Statewide;
--Nevada has completed WIC EBT system design development and is
scheduled for a March 2000 launch of a pilot in the Reno area
involving 7,200 WIC recipients and 30 retailers;
--Ohio has finalized their contract with Citibank for WIC EBT system
design, development and implementation and expects to launch
their pilot during the summer of 2000 in Montgomery County. The
Ohio WIC EBT pilot will include up to 11,000 WIC recipients and
80 retailers;
--Michigan has finalized their contract with Citibank for WIC EBT
system design, development and implementation and is in the
process of negotiating the timeline and details of the WIC
pilot, which is expected to begin by the end of calendar year
2000;
--Texas and New Mexico expect to launch WIC EBT pilots in fiscal year
2001;
--The PARTNERS project, a consortium of 6 WIC State agencies (CT, MA,
ME, NH, RI, VT), plans to release a joint Request For Proposal
(RFP) for WIC EBT pilots in fiscal year 2001, and is continuing
extensive planning for the development and implementation of
WIC EBT systems; and
--New Jersey plans to release an RFP for a WIC EBT pilot in fiscal
year 2001.
FARMERS' MARKET NUTRITION PROGRAM
The Farmers Market Nutrition Program provides WIC participants
access to fresh fruits and vegetables while also expanding the
awareness and use of farmers' markets by consumers. We firmly believe
this program is a strong complement to the WIC Program and should not
be competing with WIC for needed funds. Accordingly, we are requesting
funding for the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program separate from the WIC
Program, that is, as part of the Commodity Assistance Programs. The
requested level of $20 million for fiscal year 2001 is an increase of
$5 million above the fiscal year 2000 level. This level of funding
would allow the program to continue to grow to new counties in States
currently participating and to expand beyond the current 39 State
agencies participating in the program to other States which have
expressed interest in having this program.
COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
The Commodity Assistance Programs include funding for the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), administrative funding for The
Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) and funds for the Farmers'
Market Nutrition Program. Our budget request for fiscal year 2001
includes:
--$93.3 million in support of the women, infants, and children and
elderly caseload in CSFP;
--$45 million for TEFAP administrative expenses in addition to the
$100 million for commodity purchases available in the Food
Stamp account providing for a cumulative total program of $145
million; and
--$20 million for the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.
The CSFP level requested will support an average monthly
participation of 102,800 women, infants and children as well as an
average monthly participation of 320,100 elderly. The request of $93.3
million, in conjunction with use of $7 million in inventory, will allow
for a total program of about $100 million in fiscal year 2001. The
request of $93.3 million (which is a $5 million increase from fiscal
year 2000) is required in order to continue the program at the level of
participation expected to be attained by the end of fiscal year 2000
which will include participants from five new States. These States
include Ohio, Mississippi, Texas, Montana and Vermont.
NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR THE ELDERLY
Our request for the Nutrition Program for the Elderly is $150
million, an increase of $10 million above the fiscal year 2000 level.
The request will allow FNS to support an increase in the number of
meals served by about 7.7 percent.
FOOD PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
Our request for fiscal year 2001 is $128.6 million--an increase of
$14.0 million over fiscal year 2000. We are requesting a total of $8
million (a $5 million increase) to be used for program integrity
initiatives in both the Food Stamp Program and the Child Nutrition
Programs. This investment in program integrity, although significant in
absolute terms, is small when compared to the more than $36 billion
spent annually for program benefits, State administration and other
supporting activities. The requested increase of $5 million would be
divided between the Food Stamp and Child Nutrition Programs. Efforts in
the Food Stamp Program would be directed to improving the accuracy of
the quality control systems, working with States to reduce error rates
and avoid error rate increases while ensuring benefits for eligible
households; and efforts to ensure that States are efficiently using
procedures designed to help eligible families retain food stamp
benefits when they move from welfare to work. Efforts in the Child
Nutrition Programs would be used in part to study sources of errors in
school meals applications and evaluate alternative methods for
determining and verifying children's eligibility for free and reduced
price benefits in the School Lunch Program. Also, some of the resources
would be devoted to enhanced Federal monitoring of the CACFP State
agencies, sponsors and child care facilities.
The overall importance of nutrition to health is being increasingly
recognized with diet-related medical and lost productivity costs
soaring over an estimated $71 billion annually. To reduce these costs,
we are asking for $2 million to develop an integrated nutrition
education campaign to aggressively promote both the Dietary Guidelines
for Americans and the Food Guide Pyramid to targeted segments of the
general population (including the Spanish language community). This
increase also provides for development of consumer materials that will
help income individuals apply the Dietary Guidelines and Food Guide
Pyramid concepts within a limited budget.
We also are asking for $5 million to support an intergovernmental
partnership led by FNS to address the nutrition, health, and employment
needs of impoverished citizens in border areas known as ``Colonias.''
These resources will allow FNS to expand efforts to a larger proportion
of the 1,500 Colonias located near the Mexican border in Arizona,
California, New Mexico and Texas.
STUDIES AND EVALUATION
For fiscal year 2001, we are requesting funds for practical,
focused analysis in support of the agency's nutrition assistance
programs. In the Food Stamp account, our request is for $10.7 million;
in the Child Nutrition account, our request is $3 million; and in the
WIC account, we are requesting $3.5 million. The continued absence of
study, demonstration and evaluation funds over the last three fiscal
years has severely limited the depth of FNS support to Congressional
staff, decreased our ability to respond to States, and restricted us
from providing practical, research-based guidance to the managers of
our programs. FNS has a critical need to target program specific
studies and evaluations, rather than general research. FNS has designed
its studies and evaluations to be useful in formulating its nutrition
policy, measuring program impacts and integrity, and advising both
Administration officials and the Congress of the potential costs and
effects of legislative proposals under consideration.
GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT
The FNS Annual Performance Plan (APP) has been submitted as part of
the fiscal year 2001 budget request. As previously indicated, the
fiscal year 2001 APP has been structured to support the revised FNS
Strategic Plan which has been extensively modified to better support
the FNS mission. The goals outlined in the APP are directly related to
the achievement of the agency's strategic goals and objectives.
CONCLUSION
The mission of FNS is to increase food security and reduce hunger
in partnership with cooperating organizations by providing children and
low-income people access to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition
education in a manner that supports American agriculture and inspires
public confidence. This fiscal year 2001 budget request reflects our
commitment to the achievement of this mission. We also believe that our
request for $36.3 billion is crucial to continued efficient program
operations. Mr. Chairman, this summarizes the FNS fiscal year 2001
budget request. I will be happy to answer questions that you or other
members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
FOOD, NUTRITION AND CONSUMER SERVICES
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY R. WATKINS, UNDER SECRETARY
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to present the fiscal year 2001 budget request for the
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services (FNCS). I am accompanied today
by Samuel Chambers Jr., the Administrator for the Food and Nutrition
Service (FNS), Dr. Rajen Anand, the Executive Director for the Center
for Nutrition Policy and Promotion and Stephen Dewhurst, the
Department's Budget Officer. As Under Secretary for FNCS, I am
responsible for nutrition assistance programs administered by the Food
and Nutrition Service, including the three core programs: Food Stamp;
Child Nutrition; and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants and Children (WIC). I am also responsible for the Center
for Nutrition Policy and Promotion which is the lead Federal agency in
the research and promotion of human nutrition issues.
The mission of FNS is to increase food security and reduce hunger
in partnership with cooperating organizations by providing children and
low-income people access to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition
education in a manner that supports American agriculture and inspires
public confidence. The importance of the nutrition assistance programs
administered by FNS is clear. Despite the strongest economy in a
generation, hunger in America remains a problem, and about one in five
individuals participates in one or more of these programs. In 1998 over
9 million people, more than one-third of them children, lived in
households that experienced hunger.
A nutritious diet and access to sufficient food are critical to
lifelong health and well being, and a poor diet has been proven to be a
significant factor in 4 out of the 10 leading causes of death in the
United States. We know that obesity, in children and in adults, is a
major factor in the incidence of such conditions as diabetes,
hypertension and stroke, osteoporosis, heart disease, and some types of
cancer. These diseases account for 1.4 million deaths annually, and
they cost society an estimated $71 billion in medical costs, lost
productivity and premature deaths. Diet plays a central role in the
prevention of virtually all of these appalling statistics. Our programs
can play an effective role in education and prevention.
By fighting hunger and promoting good nutrition, these programs
help to promote the well-being of millions of families and children in
this country, and they play a crucial role in supporting those who are
making the difficult move from welfare to work and self-sufficiency.
Today we celebrate an extraordinarily strong economy and good times for
the majority of our people. But even now, National economic success has
not led to personal prosperity for everyone. Many continue to face
difficulty and hardship, and our nutrition assistance programs exist to
help. Even now--especially now--we must not lose sight of the ongoing
contribution that Federal nutrition assistance programs make in
ensuring that, in good times and bad, no one in this land of
unparalleled agricultural abundance should have to go without adequate
and nutritious food.
PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS
Before discussing some of the particulars of our budget request, I
would like to share with you some of our efforts to maintain and
improve the effectiveness of the Federal nutrition assistance programs.
The Food Stamp Program
Food Stamp Program (FSP) participants represent a broad cross-
section of the Nation's needy families and children. The Food Stamp
Program provides a critical nutrition safety net for low-income working
families, children, the disabled, some of our legal aliens, and the
elderly. We are working to ensure that the program reaches all those
who need it and to serve them efficiently and with dignity.
As a result of welfare reform legislation, some groups of
individuals have become ineligible for our programs. Many immigrants
and unemployed adults without dependents are no longer entitled to
receive food stamps. The Agricultural, Research Extension and Education
Reform Act of 1998 (the 1998 Act) restored food stamp benefits to some
of our legal aliens, but we continue to be concerned for those who
remain ineligible for benefits. In our fiscal year 2001 request, we are
asking that eligibility be restored (1) to certain legal aliens who
become elderly and (2) to certain legal aliens living with eligible
children. Additionally, we are requesting simplification of certain
food stamp rules which relate (1) to the ownership of vehicles and (2)
to the definition of income. I will have more to say about these
specific policy initiatives.
The agency is leading the way in new benefit delivery technologies.
At the end of fiscal year 1999, about two-thirds of all food stamp
benefits were issued using Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT). Thirty-
two States and the District of Columbia had fully implemented EBT for
issuing food stamp benefits. FNS continues efforts to provide needed
technical assistance associated with State EBT implementation and to
provide ground breaking technology in the development of a multi-
program delivery system which includes both WIC and food stamp
benefits.
Participation in the Food Stamp Program averaged 18.2 million
people in fiscal year 1999, and has since fallen even further, reaching
a 20 year low. Part of this decline can be attributed to the strength
of the economy and the success of welfare reform in moving many
families from welfare to work. Part of the decline is also due to new
restrictions on the participation of legal aliens and unemployed able-
bodied adults without dependents. However, between 1995 and 1997, food
stamp participation fell five times faster than the poverty rate, a
sign that the nutritional needs of some low-income people may be going
unmet. The number of people in poverty fell by .8 million over this
period while the number of food stamp participants fell by 3.8 million,
suggesting that many poor families have left the program despite their
continuing eligibility. Some families who leave welfare for work may
not be aware that they are still eligible for food stamps and, in other
instances, State or local agencies may have discouraged or even
prevented those eligible for benefits from applying. In any case,
families and children are suffering needlessly.
In July, 1999, the President responded by taking action to help
these needy families. The efforts included (1) issuing guidance to make
it easier for families to own reliable vehicles without losing their
benefits, (2) providing States with options to simplify income
reporting rules and (3) announcing a public education campaign for the
Food Stamp Program. The goals of the education campaign are to reach
and inform potential applicants about the Program and its requirements
and to help those who may be eligible. The campaign is targeting four
groups: the general public, the elderly, working poor, and immigrants.
Using models developed by FNS, a variety of materials have been
produced in both English and Spanish, and have been distributed by
State and local agencies, community organizations, and advocacy groups.
FNS continues its efforts to support State welfare reform efforts
while providing technical assistance as State policies evolve. In early
fiscal year 1999, Food Stamp Program eligibility was restored to about
225,000 legal aliens who were made ineligible by the welfare reform
legislation of 1996. FNS developed guidance for States on
implementation and bilingual materials for immigrants, and also worked
with the Social Security Administration (SSA) on a notice to Social
Security Income (SSI) recipients advising them that they may again be
eligible for food stamp benefits.
FNS continues to be a leader among Federal agencies in the
implementation of the Treasury Offset Program (TOP) to collect
delinquent food stamp recipient debt. Through TOP, Treasury is able to
match Federal payments to a delinquent debtor database. Under certain
circumstances, when a match occurs, the payment is intercepted to
satisfy the debt, either in whole or part. Claims collections for
overissued food stamps increased to $206 million in fiscal year 1999.
In fiscal year 1999, over $88 million in food stamp recipient debt was
collected through TOP. FNS is currently working with State agencies to
improve the process of submitting debts to TOP by (1) allowing State
agencies to move from an annual submission process to a quarterly
process and (2) providing direct online access to TOP for States for
more timely updates and submissions.
In the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) we
have been working through a unique partnership between the Tribal
Governments and USDA to make some important program changes. First, we
have improved the FDPIR food package based on a comprehensive review
conducted in fiscal year 1997. The nutritional content of the food
package has been improved by decreasing the percent of calories from
fat and making it conform more closely to the USDA's Food Guide
Pyramid. Second, the successful and popular FDPIR Fresh Produce
Initiative continues to expand to new sites across the country,
providing enhanced nutritional benefits to nearly 78,000 people each
month. This initiative is the result of a successful partnership with
the Department of Defense, and has now expanded to 64 sites. Third,
Indian Tribal Organizations (ITO's) that receive shipments through
Federal warehouses are now enjoying significantly better service. By
altering the basis on which orders are placed, the ITO's now only need
place their requests two months in advance of delivery instead of the
five months previously required.
In early fiscal year 1999, FNS published a rule which reinstated
the agency's authority to grant waiver requests from ITO's in Oklahoma
to allow Indian households living in urban areas to participate in the
Food Distribution Program for Indian Households in Oklahoma (FDPIHO).
This rule provides households living in urban areas with the choice of
receiving either food stamps or commodities each month. To date, two
Indian tribes in Oklahoma (the Choctaw Nation and the Chickasaw Nation)
have requested waivers to expand FDPIHO services to urban areas. Both
waivers were approved.
Child Nutrition
The Child Nutrition Programs, which include the National School
Lunch and School Breakfast and After School Snack Programs, the Child
and Adult Care Food Program, Summer Food Service Program and the
Special Milk Program serve meals to millions of children in schools and
other sites each day. For example, on an average school day during
fiscal year 1999, more than 50 percent of all children enrolled in
school ate a Federally supported school lunch. These programs are
important because providing nutritious meals and nutrition education to
these children helps them to be more productive and more likely to
succeed in school and in life. Well-educated and healthy children
mature into productive and healthy adults.
We are currently working to evaluate the potential impact of
changes in the School Breakfast Program on student behavior and
performance in school. The William F. Goodling Child Nutrition
Reauthorization Act of 1998 (the Goodling Act) authorized FNS to pilot
test the serving of breakfast in elementary schools in six districts.
This pilot will test the impact of providing free breakfasts to all
elementary school children without consideration to family income. I am
pleased to report the agency has done a considerable amount of work in
preparation for the planned beginning of the pilot in school year 2000-
2001. Our fiscal year 2001 budget request includes $6 million for the
second and final installment of funding necessary to complete the
pilot. These funds will support the provision of meals and a rigorous
evaluation of the impact of providing free breakfasts regardless of
income on student nutrition and educational achievement.
In the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) the Agency
continues to aggressively expand program integrity activities. We are
taking advantage of the Goodling Act which authorizes $1 million each
year targeted toward improved management and oversight of the CACFP.
The preponderance of these resources are being used to fund additional
staff years and associated travel costs to provide additional
management support to State agencies. Additionally, we have reconvened
the CACFP Management Improvement Task Force and significantly expanded
its efforts. To date, the Task Force has developed training modules
based on the previously issued management improvement guidance. As a
part of our comprehensive integrity improvement strategy, we expect to
publish a proposed and final child care initiative rule during the
current fiscal year (2000). In addition to ongoing program oversight
activities in fiscal year 2000, the agency will conduct an enhanced
management evaluation of CACFP administration in one State in each of
our seven regions. Finally, we are submitting, as part of the fiscal
year 2001 budget, a proposal which includes an array of management
changes designed to further address the issues of integrity and
oversight in the CACFP.
WIC
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC) is widely regarded as one of the Nation's most
successful, cost-effective public programs, and it continues to be one
of our top priorities. This Administration has consistently
demonstrated its commitment to ensuring that every eligible mother,
infant and child is provided the opportunity to receive WIC benefits.
In fiscal year 1999, average monthly participation was slightly above
7.3 million persons. We are working hard to make the program an even
greater success. I would like to mention some noteworthy examples:
--In mid-December 1999 Vice President Gore's National Partnership for
Reinventing Government announced that the WIC Program scored
second highest among 30 high impact government programs in
customer satisfaction. Only the Head Start Program scored
higher. The rating was 83 out of a possible 100, and was about
10 points higher than the National average for the programs
evaluated. These high customer satisfaction ratings are a
testament to the close and productive partnership among USDA,
the National Association of WIC Directors (NAWD), and the staff
at the State and local levels who work with WIC participants
every day. Together we vow to continue to provide the best
quality service to WIC customers to help ensure the health of
America's children.
--The agency has also continued its efforts to improve WIC program
integrity. We recently issued a regulation to strengthen the
determination of income eligibility during the certification
process. All WIC State agencies have implemented a standard set
of criteria to be used for nutritional risk determinations, and
work continues to improve the consistency of determinations
based on dietary risk. In the area of vendor management, we
issued a proposed rule in June 1999 that would implement the
provisions in the Goodling Act pertaining to vendor selection,
monitoring, and the detection of high-risk vendors. This rule
further proposed other comprehensive management provisions
designed to strengthen vendor integrity. We plan to issue this
final rule before the end of fiscal year 2000. In addition, in
March 1999 we published a final rule to curb vendor-related
fraud in the WIC Program by mandating uniform sanctions across
WIC State agencies for the most serious program violations.
These violations include trafficking, overcharging, and
exchanging food vouchers for alcohol or tobacco products. The
rule also requires the disqualification of any WIC vendor who
has been disqualified from the Food Stamp Program. This rule is
intended to promote WIC and Food Stamp Program coordination in
the disqualification of vendors and retailers who violate
program rules.
--FNS is engaged in activities to advance EBT systems that would
improve benefit delivery and client services for the WIC
Program. The agency is working with individual State
initiatives to research, plan, fund, and implement WIC EBT
systems. Several States continue to pursue hybrid benefit
delivery systems at point-of-sale locations which would combine
on-line food stamp benefit redemption with off-line WIC benefit
authorization. FNS has earmarked $2.6 million in grants for WIC
EBT in fiscal year 2000. Our fiscal year 2001 request includes
$6 million dedicated to EBT development in States that have
already begun EBT planning, with an ultimate goal of
implementing EBT in additional States.
--The Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) now operates in 39
State agencies, providing fresh fruits and vegetables to WIC
participants. During 1999, the FMNP was expanded to add one new
State (Alabama), one new Territory (Guam) and two Indian Tribal
Organizations (Rosebud and Osage Tribal Councils). The
President's budget transfers the program from WIC to the
Commodity Assistance Program (CAP) and proposes to increase
funding to allow for growth in those States currently
participating as well as expansion into other States not
currently in the program.
--FNS and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) continue to work with
non-federal partners to increase access to immunization
services through the WIC Program. Currently, about three
quarters of all local WIC agencies assess client status and
make appropriate referrals to immunization services for
children. The CDC reports that about 81 percent of pre-school
children are being assessed for immunization status and receive
the needed services thanks to the intervention of the WIC
Program.
--Over the past 10 years, WIC per person food costs have either
declined or have reflected only a modest increase due to the
diligent cost containment efforts of State and FNS
partnerships. The most successful part of this strategy has
been competitively bid rebate contracts between State agencies
and infant formula manufacturers. These successes have been
instrumental in supporting more participation than would
otherwise have been possible.
--The WIC Program promotes breastfeeding as the best form of
nutrition for infants through the provision of support and
encouragement to new mothers and through nutrition education
during pregnancy. In fiscal year 1998, State agencies spent
nearly $57 million on this effort. FNS continues to sponsor
semi-annual meetings of the Breastfeeding Promotion
Consortium--a group of health professionals representing
government, advocacy and public health interests. In 1997, FNS
implemented a National Breastfeeding Promotion Campaign, in
cooperation with State agencies. The goal of the Loving Support
Campaign is to raise awareness of the benefits of breastfeeding
among WIC-eligible women, fathers, and family health care
providers to help create a community environment that accepts
and supports a woman's decision to breastfeed. Currently, 54
WIC State agencies are participating in the campaign and a
recent evaluation indicates that the campaign is a tremendous
success. Along with the Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS), USDA participated in the development of a Health Care
Physicians' and Providers' Breastfeeding Support Kit by Best
Start. The kits were developed for health care professionals to
complement the Loving Support Campaign materials which focus on
consumer education. Finally, the authorization in the Goodling
Act to allow program funds to be used for the purchase or
rental of breast pumps was a giant step forward.
WIC is, without a doubt, one of the best nutrition assistance
programs ever created. It provides mothers access to nutrition
education, health care referrals, and supplemental foods rich in the
necessary dietary elements they could not otherwise afford. WIC babies
do get a healthier start in life, and we intend to continue our hard
work so that all who need the program will be able to participate.
Commodity Supplemental Food Program
In our Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), we have improved
the flexibility of State and local agencies to serve needy populations.
In short, agencies operating CSFP can now serve women, infants,
children and the elderly as needed. We are seeing a distinct increase
in elderly participation, and we want to make sure that the program is
responsive to their needs.
Program services have been improved through a redesign of inventory
systems. Federal inventory is now replenished based on historical data,
rather than on a requirement for organizations to place orders five
months prior to delivery. This change significantly reduces the need
for organizations to adjust orders and helps to ensure that they will
have the foods they need on hand.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program
During fiscal year 1999, the States once more had the prerogative
of using administrative funds for the purchase of food. This was a
significant improvement and allowed administrative funds to be more
efficiently used to increase the total flow of food from all sources
through The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). As a result, we
have been able to purchase a greater variety of healthful foods. In
fiscal year 1999, bonus commodities donated to States were valued at a
total of $108 million.
Food Program Administration
FNCS has a fundamental responsibility to ensure both the program
and financial integrity of each nutrition assistance program including
the timely delivery of benefits to all qualified recipients. It is a
responsibility that the Administrator and I take very seriously. The
FNS Food Program Administration (FPA) account, which supports most of
the Federal administrative activity for our nutrition assistance
programs, is an important part of such assurance. The FNS staff
continues to be committed to finding new and innovative approaches to
improving program integrity and services. I will have more to say
concerning those new initiatives in this account.
In addition to its nutrition assistance programs, FNCS operates the
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. The Center is the focal
point for the advancement and coordination of nutrition promotion and
education policy. It provides important research and analysis and
actively collaborates with public, private and non-profit organizations
to expand the body of critical nutrition information and research.
Nutrition Education
FNCS nutrition education programs offer one of the Nation's best
opportunities to improve dietary practices in our target populations in
ways that promote health and well-being. These programs offer an
extraordinary opportunity to reach participants, particularly children
who participate during their formative years, with nutrition and
healthy lifestyle messages. Research confirms that well-designed,
behavior-focused interventions can effectively improve diets and
nutrition-related behaviors. FNCS is working toward a comprehensive
nutrition education approach that is fully integrated into all FNCS
programs, and provides consistent, reinforcing nutrition messages
across programs. Members of the target groups are encouraged to make
healthy food and nutrition-related choices throughout their life cycle.
The FNCS nutrition education objective is to reach all those we serve
with state-of-the-art nutrition education that can effectively change
behavior and promote long-term health. Last year, in response to a
request included in the conference report accompanying the Fiscal Year
2000 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FNS prepared and submitted a
report to Congress, ``Promoting Healthy Eating: An Investment in the
Future.'' That report presents a range of recommendations in support of
a comprehensive, integrated nutrition education approach that reaches
across programs. I commend the report to your attention, and I look
forward to working with Congress to implement its recommendations.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 REQUEST
FNS has recently revised its Strategic Plan to better reflect the
agency's unified mission and purposes. The new Strategic Plan (and the
associated fiscal year 2001 Annual Performance Plan) charts a clear
course toward the nutrition security outcomes that each of our vital
programs are intended to achieve and fully meets our stewardship
responsibilities which are so critical to maintaining public
confidence. Our request of $36.3 billion in new budget authority for
fiscal year 2001 fully supports the goals and objectives set forth in
the Strategic Plan and will maintain and augment the long-standing
contribution of the Nation's nutrition assistance programs. I will
focus the remainder of my remarks on key aspects of the budget request,
including a number of policy changes we have proposed. The testimony of
the Administrator, Samuel Chambers, is being submitted for the record
and presents many of the technical aspects of our request.
FOOD STAMP PROGRAM
We are requesting $22.2 billion for the Food Stamp Program, a
slight increase from fiscal year 2000, resulting principally from an
increase in projected participation and food costs. The request would
also fund a number of important policy changes that the Administration
is proposing. Two of our policy initiatives deal with the issue of
eligibility for certain legal aliens. As I have indicated on previous
occasions, the Administration believes that some provisions of welfare
reform went too far, making some changes that had nothing to do with
the stated goal of moving people from welfare to work. The 1998 Act
restored food stamp eligibility to several of the most vulnerable
groups of legal aliens, including those who were age 65 or older and
legally residing in the U.S. when welfare reform legislation passed in
1996. It is now time to take the next steps. We propose to restore food
stamp eligibility to aliens who legally resided in the U.S. on August
22, 1996, and who subsequently reach age 65, correcting the inequity of
treating some elderly legal aliens differently from others solely on
the basis of a birth date.
Another proposal included in our request for fiscal year 2001 will
restore food stamp eligibility to aliens adults who legally resided in
the U.S. on August 22, 1996, and who live with eligible children--
effective April 1, 2001. Families with children of immigrant parents,
even the children born into citizenship in this country, receive fewer
benefits than families with children of native born parents facing the
same circumstances. This proposal will eliminate this inequity and
improve the well-being of children by increasing food stamp benefits to
their low-income households.
We are also pursuing changes to better serve the working poor. As
more families move from welfare into the job market, there is a growing
recognition of the importance of owning a reliable vehicle to find and
keep a job. Under today's Food Stamp Program rules, people leaving
welfare to go to work may not qualify for food stamps because of the
value of their vehicle(s). These rules are complicated and may be
inconsistent with the regulations States use in the Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Program. The stringent limit
currently in place is a barrier to participation by low-income people,
many of whom are faced too often with the choice between buying food
and reliable transportation. To mitigate this situation, we have
included in our request a legislative proposal to allow States the
option of making Food Stamp Program vehicle rules conform to TANF
Program rules, simplifying administration and improving access for the
working poor.
Finally, we have included a legislative proposal to allow States to
conform the mandatory income exclusions in the Food Stamp Program to
those used in the Medicaid Program. Current food stamp law excludes
certain categories of income from benefit calculations, exclusions
which are somewhat different from Medicaid. These differences introduce
unnecessary complexity in State administration. This proposal, which
allows for the alignment of Food Stamp and Medicaid income definitions,
will help eliminate this complexity.
This estimate includes a benefit reserve of $1 billion--a $900
million increase from fiscal year 1999. The Food Stamp Program is the
primary source of nutrition assistance for low-income families with a
mission to ensure that all households have access to healthful diets
and receive sound nutrition education and guidance. As part of the Food
Stamp Program operations, States conduct an Employment and Training
(E&T) Program to assist program participants in gaining the skills,
instruction or experience that will increase their ability to move from
welfare to regular employment. In fiscal year 2001, we are requesting
$381 million to support the E&T Program. In addition, during fiscal
year 2000, States will be allowed to use any carryover fiscal year 1999
E&T funds.
Also included in our request for the Food Stamp Program is $10
million to support a nutrition education initiative and a campaign
designed to reach potentially eligible families and individuals with
information about (1) the nutritional benefits of the Food Stamp
Program and (2) application procedures. The effort will target the
following groups: the general public; the elderly; working poor; the
disabled; and households containing legal aliens. Educational materials
will be produced in both English and Spanish.
CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS
In the Child Nutrition Programs, we are requesting funding of $9.5
billion--a very slight decrease from fiscal year 2000. The decrease is
the result of a $416 million projected carryover from fiscal year 2000,
reducing the need for new budget authority. We do project modest
increases in participation in both the National School Lunch and School
Breakfast Programs. These increases are attributable to higher school
enrollments and the resulting rise in the numbers of children
participating in the programs.
We have included a modest request of $2 million for Nutrition
Education and Training (NET) Program activities for which I strongly
urge your support. NET provides training for school food service
personnel in food service management and for teachers in providing
nutrition education and information for children. It is a critical tool
for building capacity at the State level to support and deliver
nutrition education to our young people--education that helps them
develop healthy eating habits that can last a lifetime. We are also
requesting $6 million for meals and to fund a rigorous evaluation of
the School Breakfast Program Pilot which was authorized by the Goodling
Act. The evaluation will be designed to ensure that the results of the
pilots are measured and analyzed so they will be reliably valid and
useful in making future policy decisions. Finally, our request for
resources to support the crucial Team Nutrition Program remains at the
fiscal year 2000 level of $10 million.
I have been most concerned about the cases of mismanagement and
fraud that both FNS and Federal auditors have identified in the Child
and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). In an effort to improve CACFP
program management, we are proposing legislation that would net the
agency savings of about $800 thousand in fiscal year 2001 and $115.2
million over a five year period. This legislative proposal includes an
array of management changes designed to improve integrity and oversight
in CACFP. The proposal will include measures to strengthen oversight by
sponsors, including prohibiting participation by sponsors that have a
track record of mismanagement in other government programs and limiting
the funds that may be retained by sponsors of child care centers for
administration. The proposal also includes measures to strengthen State
oversight, such as allowing States to retain a portion of program funds
recovered through audits and reviews. In addition, the proposal would
enhance Federal oversight and fund an evaluation of the program's
administrative reimbursement structure. This proposal effectively
addresses a number of issues raised in Federal audits which can only be
addressed through legislation. These resources would complement and
reinforce the additional funds for Child Nutrition integrity
enforcement which we are requesting in the Food Program Administration
(FPA) account.
SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS AND CHILDREN
(WIC)
For the WIC Program, our request is $4.1 billion--a $116 million
increase from the level enacted for fiscal year 2000. This level of
funding will support an average monthly participation of nearly 7.5
million at-risk women, infants and children who receive the nutrition
education and food benefits of this crucial assistance program. This
requested amount is sufficient to ensure that all who are eligible will
be able to participate.
COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
In our Commodity Assistance Programs (CAP), we request a funding
level of $158.3 million--a net increase of only $5 million from the
fiscal year 2000 level. The Farmers Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) is
included at $20 million--an increase of $5 million over the fiscal year
2000 level which is funded in the WIC appropriation. The $20 million
request will sustain or expand the current program level in the 39
State agencies now participating and allow for new States that have
expressed an interest in joining the program. To give you a sense of
the magnitude of the program, in fiscal year 1998, coupons were given
to 1.3 million WIC participants. The participants redeemed their
coupons at 1,529 authorized farmers' markets providing revenue for
almost 9,600 small family farmers--contributing to the commitment to
support American agriculture which is reflected in the FNS mission
statement.
As you know, the CAP also supports the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program for women, infants and children as well as the elderly. Our
request of $93.3 million, in conjunction with the use of about $7
million from inventory, will serve a combined caseload estimated at
about 423,000--an increase of almost 9,000 from fiscal year 2000. The
nominal $100 million which we will spend in fiscal year 2001 will
include participants from five new States which are being brought into
the program in fiscal year 2000. Those new States are Ohio,
Mississippi, Texas, Montana and Vermont. Our request for The Emergency
Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) administrative expenses is $45
million--the same level as for fiscal year 2000.
FOOD DONATIONS PROGRAMS
We are requesting $150 million for the Nutrition Program The $10
million increase will provide for an approximate 7.7 percent increase
in the number of meals served. Our two smaller programs remain at the
same level as fiscal year 2000.
FOOD PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
In the Food Program Administration account, our request is $128.6
million--about $14 million above the fiscal year 2000 level. Included
in our request level are several noteworthy initiatives. First, we are
requesting $5 million to support a new intergovernmental partnership to
be led by FNS. The objective is to address the nutrition, health,
housing and employment of the very impoverished Southwest border areas
known as Colonias. FNS would help these communities maximize the
current assistance programs offered by Federal, State, local and non-
profit partners. FNS began work in fiscal year 1999 in 10 Colonias in
Texas, providing partnership support and program benefits to
participants. The fiscal year 2001 level of $5 million will allow FNS
to expand its efforts to a larger proportion of the 1,500 Colonias near
the Mexican border in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas.
Second, we are requesting $2 million for use in developing an
integrated nutrition education program which will aggressively promote
the 5th edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the Food
Guide Pyramid, including the recently-released Food Guide Pyramid for
Young Children. Nutrition promotion efforts will be targeted to
individuals with particular needs, such as low-income children and
women, and pregnant and post-partum women, particularly teenagers. The
increase for CNPP also provides for development of consumer materials
that will help low-income individuals apply Guidelines and Pyramid
concepts within a limited budget. With diet-related medical and lost
productivity cost in the U.S. now reaching an estimated $71 billion
annually, we must move decisively to promote both the Guidelines and
the Pyramid if we are to effectively help Americans improve and
maintain their health. This is a very modest investment which can
result in a large payback in terms of a healthier America.
Third, we are requesting a total of $8 million to supplement other
ongoing program integrity activities within FNS. The $8 million will be
distributed to the Food Stamp and Child Nutrition Program integrity
activities. Efforts in the Food Stamp Program would be directed at: (1)
improving the accuracy of the quality control systems, (2) working with
States to reduce payment error rates and avoid error rate increases,
while ensuring access to Food Stamps for all eligible households; and
(3) efforts to ensure that States are effectively implementing
procedures set forth in regulations which are designed to guarantee
that eligible households moving from welfare-to-work continue to
receive nutrition assistance. Efforts in the Child Nutrition Programs
would be used, in part, to study sources of errors in school meals
applications and evaluate pilots of alternative methods for determining
and verifying eligibility for free and reduced price benefits in the
National School Lunch Program. Also, some of the resources would be
devoted to enhanced Federal monitoring of the CACFP State agencies,
sponsors and child care facilities.
Federal administrative resources to support our nutrition
assistance programs have declined very significantly over the years to
the point where they represent less than one-half percent of the total
FNS funding. For example, resources available to oversee States and
implement improvements such as WIC EBT are extremely limited.
Therefore, it is most important to us that our FPA request be fully
funded.
STUDIES AND EVALUATIONS
The Administration is once again requesting that funding for
studies and evaluations be provided to FNS. Our request is for $10.7
million in the Food Stamp account, $3 million in the Child Nutrition
account and $3.5 million in the WIC account. The continued absence of
study, demonstration and evaluation funding over the last three fiscal
years has severely limited the depth of FNS support to Congressional
staff, decreased our ability to respond to requests from the States,
and restricted us from providing practical research-based guidance to
the managers of our programs. FNS has a strong record of studies and
evaluations used to formulate its nutrition policy, measure program
impact and integrity and advise both Administration officials and the
Congress of the potential costs and effects of legislative proposals
under consideration. The proximity of research staff to FNS' program
and policy staff is critical to ensure a research agenda that is
practical and relevant to program operations and policy development.
With enhanced research funding FNS can more effectively address problem
areas on a short term basis. It is appropriate that study funds be
located in FNS because of the strong need to target those funds for
action-oriented and program-specific studies and evaluations, rather
than for general research purposes.
CONCLUSION
As I conclude today, I wish to personally thank you for your
support and for the support of the Subcommittee in helping to make our
programs the enormous success stories that they have become. Thanks to
you, they continue to make a significant and positive impact on
millions of families and children across this country. This concludes
my statement. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Perepared Statement of James R. Baker, Administrator
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to submit
the fiscal year 2001 budget proposal for the Grain Inspection, Packers
and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA).
GIPSA is part of USDA's Marketing and Regulatory Programs, which
works to ensure a productive and competitive global marketplace for
U.S. agricultural products. GIPSA's mission is to facilitate the
marketing of livestock, poultry, meat, cereals, oilseeds, and related
agricultural products, and to promote fair and competitive trading
practices for the overall benefit of consumers and American
agriculture.
GIPSA has both regulatory and service roles. GIPSA's Packers and
Stockyards Programs (P&S) ensure fair business practices for livestock,
meat, and poultry while providing financial protection to livestock
producers. The Agency's Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS)
provides the U.S. grain market with Federal quality standards and a
uniform system for applying them. It also provides impartial, accurate
measurements of grain quality to create an environment that promotes
fairness and efficiency in the U.S. grain marketing system. GIPSA, an
unbiased, third-party entity in the marketplace, helps ensure fair and
competitive marketing systems for all involved in the merchandising of
livestock, meat, and poultry, and grain and related products.
ORGANIZATION
During fiscal year 1999, GIPSA completed its consolidation of
headquarters activities and established three field offices for the
Packers and Stockyards (P&S) Programs to replace the previous 11
offices. Each office is responsible for the major issues in a
particular commodity--beef, pork, or poultry--and has investigative
units to focus on the core activities of competition, trade practices,
and financial responsibility. Funding to complete the reorganization
was provided for in fiscal year 1999, which allowed GIPSA to step up
staffing efforts in the regional offices and to fill resident agent
positions that provide routine services to areas not proximate to the
three main offices. The reorganization has significantly improved P&S
Programs' ability to focus program resources on providing financial
protection and promoting fair business practices and a competitive
marketing environment for livestock, meat, and poultry. The new
structure and the addition of economic, statistical and legal expertise
to the investigation staff of the field offices significantly
strengthens GIPSA's ability to investigate anticompetitive practices,
and provides greater flexibility and efficiency in enforcing the trade
practices and payment protection provisions of the P&S Act. This, in
turn, enables GIPSA to rapidly respond to high priority investigations
that require fast action.
Federal grain personnel work with over 2,000 State and private
inspectors to provide high-quality inspection and weighing services on
a user-fee basis. Federal inspectors service 37 export elevators
located in Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, New York,
Ohio, Oregon, and Texas. Under a cooperative agreement with GIPSA, the
Canadian Grain Commission provides official services, with GIPSA
oversight, at 6 locations in Canada for U.S. grain transshipped through
Canadian ports. Eight delegated States provide service at an additional
19 export elevators located in Alabama, California, Minnesota,
Mississippi, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Fifty-nine (59) designated agencies service the domestic market under
GIPSA supervision. In 1999, this unique mix of Federal, State, and
private inspection agencies provided nearly 2 million inspections on
over 228 million metric tons of grains and oilseeds; weighed over 106.5
million metric tons of grain; and issued over 90,000 official weight
certificates.
GIPSA'S PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS PROGRAMS (P&S)
GIPSA's P&S Programs provides financial protection and promotes
fair business practices and a competitive marketing environment for
livestock, meat, and poultry. Our programs foster fair competition, and
guard against deceptive and fraudulent practices affecting the movement
and price of meat animals and their products. The production and
marketing of livestock, meat, and poultry are important to American
agriculture and significantly impact the Nation's economy. The Commerce
Department estimates the annual wholesale value of livestock, meat, and
poultry products produced in fiscal year 1999 by firms subject to the
P&S Act to be $109 billion. At the close of fiscal year 1999, there
were 1,287 stockyards; 6,434 market agencies/dealers; 2,000 packer
buyers registered with GIPSA to engage in the livestock marketing
business. In addition, there are 377 slaughtering packers who purchased
over $500,000 of livestock annually that are required to be bonded, 205
poultry firms, and a significant number of meat distributors, brokers,
and dealers subject to the P&S Act.
P&S Programs conducted over 1,200 investigations during the 1999
fiscal year. Most violations were corrected on a voluntary basis with
several resulting in livestock and poultry producers receiving
additional funds for the sale of their product. During fiscal year
1999, 12 administrative or justice complaints were issued to bring
subject firms into compliance with the provisions of the P&S Act. In
addition, 18 decisions and orders were issued by USDA against 22
individuals or firms for violating the P&S Act.
GIPSA closely monitors anticompetitive practices which may impede
the free trade of livestock, meat, and poultry. A high priority is
placed on investigating all complaints and further developing
information received concerning the failure of firms and individuals in
the livestock, meat, and poultry industries to operate in a fair and
competitive manner. Appropriate corrective action is initiated when
evidence of anticompetitive practices is discovered.
USDA has committed to conducting peer reviews of major
investigations to ensure that the investigators asked the right
questions, collected the right data, and conducted appropriate
analyses. Peer reviews by objective, qualified reviewers may contribute
to GIPSA's plans to strengthen enforcement of anticompetitive behavior
in the livestock, meat, and poultry industries. GIPSA initiated the
peer review process for the current Texas fed-cattle investigation. A
panel of seven outside peer reviewers was assembled in January 1999;
the group reported their findings to GIPSA in May 1999. Their comments
were used by the analysts who conducted econometric analyses as part of
the Texas investigation as they prepared their final report.
GIPSA has received information that some livestock transactions are
conditioned on an agreement that the transaction price not be reported
to public or private reporting services. GIPSA is concerned that the
non-reporting of price as a condition of the purchase or sale of
livestock may result in inaccurate and incomplete price information,
thereby adversely affecting the price discovery process. On September
10, 1998, GIPSA published in the Federal Register an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning the practice of non-reporting of
price as a condition of purchase or sale of livestock. The comment
period for the ANPRM closed on December 9, 1998. Eighteen comments were
received and have been analyzed by GIPSA.
USDA's fiscal year 2000 appropriation mandates, subject to funding,
creation of a swine marketing-agreement library and monthly reporting
of types of contracts in use, provisions providing for expansion in the
number of swine to be delivered in 6 months and 12 months, estimated
number of swine committed for delivery to packers in 6 months and 12
months, and the estimated maximum number of swine that could be
delivered to packers in 6 months and 12 months. GIPSA is preparing a
regulation to implement the provisions.
As part of its responsibility to strengthen investigations and
assess competitive implications of structural changes in the livestock,
meatpacking, and poultry industries, GIPSA entered into five
cooperative research agreements. Two of the projects will examine
competitive conditions in beef markets. Two projects will examine
competitiveness issues and compensation methods used in broiler
production. The final project will examine bidding behavior in a
laboratory auction setting in order to gain insights into expected
behavior in actual markets. GIPSA obtains special procurement
information for the Nation's top 15 steer and heifer slaughter firms
annually. This information is related to livestock purchased through
contracts, packer feeding arrangements, or marketing agreement/formula-
priced transactions. Much more work must be done to determine the
effects of these captive supplies in both the beef and pork industries.
Additional resources are critical to provide for data collection, and
economic and statistical analyses in this very important and sensitive
area.
GIPSA's P&S Programs continues to provide payment protection to
livestock and poultry producers. Financial investigations, during
fiscal year 1999, resulted in $2.7 million being restored to custodial
accounts established and maintained for the benefit of livestock
sellers. Since the 1976 amendments to the P&S Act, livestock sellers
have been paid $53.8 million under the statutory trust provisions. In
1999, no poultry trust complaints were received by GIPSA. During Fiscal
year 1999, 169 insolvent dealers and market agencies corrected or
reduced their insolvencies by $4.5 million. Insolvent packers corrected
or reduced their insolvencies by $4.6 million.
GIPSA continues to receive complaints from contract growers that
integrators use their dominant positions to impose unfair or unjustly
discriminatory terms or conditions on contract growers. GIPSA published
an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register to
solicit input on the need for regulations to protect growers.
Subsequently, GIPSA proposed amending regulations pertaining to scales
and weighing in regard to feed weights. These amendments to the
regulations are in the clearance process. Specifically, GIPSA is
proposing to include requirements regarding the weighing of feed
whenever the weight of feed is a factor in determining payment or
settlement to a livestock grower or poultry grower when that livestock
or poultry is produced under a contract growing arrangement.
Concentration in the poultry processing industry and its effects on
contract growers is an area that needs attention to determine whether
the processors are using their dominant positions to impose unfair or
unjustly discriminatory terms or conditions on contract growers. Grower
complaints continue to highlight the need to address concerns about
their relative bargaining position. If GIPSA is to effectively address
this issue, it must obtain the resources needed to fully staff both the
Trade Practices and Competition Units in its Atlanta office, which are
responsible for major issues in the poultry industry across the Nation.
GIPSA'S FEDERAL GRAIN INSPECTION SERVICE
GIPSA's grain inspection program plays a critically important role
in facilitating the marketing of U.S. grain and related commodities for
the benefit of American agriculture. We provide the U.S. grain market
with Federal quality standards and a uniform system to apply these
standards. Through this program, GIPSA provides descriptions (grades)
and testing methodologies for measuring the quality and quantity of
grain, rice, edible beans, and related commodities, and, provides an
array of inspection and weighing services, on a fee basis, through a
unique partnership of Federal, State, and private laboratories.
By serving as an impartial third party, GIPSA ensures that the
standards are applied and the weights recorded in a fair and accurate
manner. Our presence in the market advances the orderly and efficient
marketing and effective distribution of U.S. grain and other assigned
commodities from the Nation's farms to domestic and international
buyers.
Our guidance in carrying out these important tasks is provided by
the U.S. Grain Standards Act (USGSA) and the Agricultural Marketing Act
of 1946 (AMA) as it relates to the inspection of rice, pulses, lentils,
and processed grain products. Through voluntary and mandatory programs,
GIPSA promotes the efficient and effective marketing of U.S. grain and
other commodities from farmers to end users.
For an average cost of 22 cents (adjusted for inflation to 1992
dollars) per metric ton of grain in fiscal year 1999, exporters
received USDA export certificates from GIPSA on which they relied to
facilitate the marketing of over $20 billion worth of cereals and
oilseeds. Likewise, here at home, buyers and handlers requested over
1.9 million domestic inspections that facilitated the trading of 127
million metric tons of cereals and oilseeds destined for domestic use.
While current services are effective and efficient, GIPSA
recognizes that to remain relevant in today's marketplace, continuous
efficiency enhancements and service improvement are essential. To that
end, GIPSA is focusing on improving our efficiency and service delivery
through the introduction of new technology; preparing to enter the
world of e-commerce; and responding to new market needs being driven by
technology and global market demands. The grain program has made a
number of enhancements to its operations and structure to improve the
efficiency and productivity, not only of the inspection and weighing
process and GIPSA's service delivery, but, more importantly, to the
actual handling and marketing of grain.
Structurally, GIPSA has, over the years, continuously realigned to
optimize its staffing levels and organization. Since 1994, the grain
program reduced staffing levels by 8 percent and streamlined its field
structure from 31 to 21 offices, thereby allowing for more flexible
staff utilization and more consistent policy implementation. Our
Commodity Testing Laboratory, formerly in Beltsville, Maryland, was
merged into our Technical Center in Kansas City, MO. The Technical
Center is now a model of how streamlining and cross-functional teams
can result in cost efficiencies and a sharpened customer service focus.
We also are reengineering to provide more efficient and effective
programs and services. We reengineered our quality assurance program,
already known worldwide for ensuring consistent and accurate inspection
and weighing results. By automating to a PC-driven system and
decentralizing the process to the local level, our reengineered quality
assurance program provides for proactive problem solving and immediate
quality control feedback. Automation is also the key to improving our
inspection services. To integrate our export inspection process with
the export industry's technological advances, GIPSA is automating the
export inspection statistical shiploading plan, also known as Cu-Sum
Plan. Automating Cu-Sum allows for direct data sharing with our export
grain customers, thereby eliminating manual data entry and reducing
administrative costs both for GIPSA and our customers. We are working
closely with export elevators to automate their scales and material
systems to official requirements. This automation reduces official
oversight personnel, which produces a considerable cost savings for our
customers, and provides for superior supervision and greatly improved
efficiency for GIPSA. To date, five export elevators are operating
approved systems; 6 more are in the process of automating. To improve
the efficiency and productivity of U.S. grain handling, GIPSA
established a public/private partnership to automate inspection
processes. This effort reduced the agency's operating costs and
improved the speed, productivity, and efficiency of export operations--
essential factors in today's competitive global market. A prototype
system currently is being installed at an export elevator in Destrehan,
Louisiana. These are only some of the ways that GIPSA is seeking to
enhance the efficiency of our operations. Future technological advances
and customer needs will drive even further improvements.
Our efforts are paying off for our customers, both in terms of
their bottom lines and in greater customer satisfaction. GIPSA's
service delivery costs decreased from $0.27 per metric ton in fiscal
year 1994 to $0.22 per metric ton in fiscal year 1999, saving American
agriculture over $5 million in fiscal year 1999 alone.
These savings in inspection service costs pale in comparison to the
savings achieved by the industry thorough improved productivity. GIPSA
is proud to be a partner with the industry in realizing that
productivity enhancement. Last year, at a single facility in Iowa,
GIPSA fostered a unique and unprecedented cooperative partnership to
provide service and made rules more flexible in order to implement a
new, on-site rapid inspection program that saved one the customer more
than $250,000 per year.
Applying technology to our inspection and weighing services is only
one part of our continuous improvement process. We also are
implementing new services to keep pace with an increasingly
sophisticated market that requires end-use quality information. In
fiscal year 1999, GIPSA approved two new deoxynivalenol (DON) test kits
for use in the official grain inspection and weighing system. These
test kits expand the availability and choice of test kits for the
official system. In fiscal year 1999, GIPSA also approved a new
instrument for use in conjunction with an approved mycotoxin test kit--
this flourometer provides the official system alternative equipment at
approximately half the cost of the original equipment.
In fiscal year 1999, GIPSA also developed a reference method for
fumonisins in grain. This method reduces direct costs and improves
efficiency through use of robotics technology. In the spring of 2000,
the Food and Drug Administration is expected to establish advisory
levels which will specifically address fumonsins levels in grains
destined for human, cattle, swine or poultry consumption. The reference
method will be used to evaluate the performance of rapid fumonisin
tests submitted to GIPSA to for approval and use in the official
system. GIPSA plans to evaluate and approve fumonisin rapid tests for
the official inspection system prior to the fall corn harvest.
Our efforts to harness technology, improve service delivery, and
meet new market needs are diverging most clearly in our work to address
American agriculture's needs in the area of biotechnology.
Biotechnology has accelerated the rate of change in agriculture
with new varieties meeting both the agronomic needs of the farmer and
the specific quality attributes of the end user. It also has created
new market challenges as a result of increased consumer demand for non-
biotech foods.
The entire infrastructure of agriculture including production,
transportation, storage, handling, processing, distribution, and
marketing is being influenced.
When markets around the world reject or limit imports of biotech
crops, it has enormous implications for all of America's farmers. In
1999, one third of the U.S. corn crop and over half of the soybean crop
were biotech varieties. U.S. corn growers lost approximately $400
million in potential export sales since 1998, and face similar losses
this year.
As local markets around the world began to demand a distinction
between conventional and biotech crops, GIPSA provided a letterhead
statement indicating that for certain crops, the United States was not
producing any biotech varieties. Specific statements to facilitate
trade involved dry edible beans, sorghum, wheat, and barley.
GIPSA also initiated action to establish a biotech reference
facility. Our laboratory will meet the market's need for reliable and
accurate analytical techniques that differentiate non-biotech from
biotech grains and oilseeds by evaluating and verifying the validity of
analytical procedures used to detect and quantify genetically enhanced
traits in grains and oilseeds. It also will be used to establish
sampling procedures for use in testing genetically enhanced grains and
oilseeds. These standardized sampling and testing methods will be
implemented through GIPSA's inspection program. The laboratory will
meet a market need to ensure reliability of biotech crop detection
methods and to facilitate information exchange, which, in turn, will
decrease transaction costs and increase overall market efficiency.
GIPSA's fiscal year 2001 budget request includes funding that will
enable GIPSA to complete establishment of the laboratory.
GIPSA has developed and will continue to develop the standardized
testing methods needed by the market to measure the true value of the
new enhanced quality attributes being introduced through biotechnology.
This is a formidable challenge as more and more traits are introduced.
New soybean traits alone include high content levels of oleic and
stearate fatty acids, low linolenic acid content, and high sucrose
content.
GIPSA has traditionally taken this role in the marketplace. We
facilitate the marketing of grain by providing accurate and cost-
effective measures of grain quality. We have been viewed as an
independent, third party in providing grades and standards,
establishing procedures, and in the actual provision of inspection and
weighing services.
We are an integral part of America's grain handling
infrastructure--a superior infrastructure of storage facilities, rail
lines, and waterways that makes American agriculture preeminently
successful in the global marketplace. We recognize our role and will
continue to provide all members of the U.S. grain handling system with
the innovative, high-quality official inspection services they need to
efficiently and effectively meet the challenges of a changing marketing
environment.
Our commitment to reaching our customers does not end at our
borders. Exporters, importers, and end users of U.S. grains and
oilseeds, as well as other USDA agencies, USDA cooperator
organizations, and other governments, frequently ask for GIPSA
personnel to travel overseas. These activities include representing the
Agency at grain marketing and grain grading seminars, meeting with
foreign governments and grain industry representatives to resolve grain
quality and weight discrepancies, helping other countries develop
domestic grain and commodity standards and marketing infrastructures,
assisting importers with quality specifications, and training local
inspectors in U.S. inspection methods and procedures. In fiscal year
1999, GIPSA saw a dramatic increase in the number of requests for
technical assistance overseas. During the fiscal year, GIPSA helped
other USDA agencies and USDA cooperators conduct destination sampling,
provide technical assistance, give grain inspection seminars overseas,
lead a U.S. delegation to review several receiver's grain scale
operations, and investigate quality discrepancies, on a cost recovery
basis.
At home, GIPSA regularly holds seminars and meetings to educate our
worldwide customers about the quality and value of U.S. grain exports.
In fiscal year 1999, GIPSA representatives met in the United States
with 89 teams from 50 countries to provide information, technical
guidance, and educational seminars. These international outreach
efforts help promote greater harmony between U.S. and international
standards, and foster a better understanding of the U.S. grain
marketing system, the official U.S. grain standards, the national
inspection system. This, in turn, reduces the risk of new barriers in
today's open and freer global marketplace, enhances purchasers'
confidence in U.S. grain, and facilitates the export of U.S.
agricultural products.
The grain program will continue to work to ensure our relevance and
value to American agriculture. We are reaffirming our commitment to
facilitating the marketing of U.S. grain by responding to our
customers' needs and providing the highest quality grain inspection and
weighing services to all whom we serve--from farmer to domestic and
international end users, and all those in between.
Our efforts in fiscal year 2001 will focus on working with our
customers to identify how we can apply automation to reengineer our
administrative and inspection processes to achieve greater efficiency
and productivity, and on helping American agriculture maximize the
opportunities presented by biotechnology by providing the information
the market needs to effectively and equitably market value-added
products. In fiscal year 2001, our commitment to improved efficiency
and effectiveness will continue to serve American agriculture well, as
U.S. agricultural exports are expected to total $49 billion.
GIPSA accomplished a great deal in fiscal year 1999 and much is
planned for fiscal year 2000. Our efforts to continuously improve our
programs and services were further guided by the Agency's Strategic
Plan, developed under the provisions of the Government Performance and
Results Act.
CIVIL RIGHTS
In addition to improving our services and programs in fiscal year
1999, GIPSA also accomplished a great deal in the area of civil rights.
In accordance with USDA's efforts to change and improve the way we do
business; and to ensure that every employee and customer is treated
fairly, equitably, and with dignity and respect, GIPSA is working to
improve all areas of Civil Rights. Accordingly, we have taken a number
of actions.
In fiscal year 1999, GIPSA implemented a strengthened Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) Program that reflects GIPSA's commitment to
operate more efficiently and effectively, and to encourage, where
possible, consensual resolution of disputes. Under this program, GIPSA
is promoting greater use of mediation, arbitration, early neutral
evaluation, agency ombuds, and other alternative dispute resolution
(ADR) techniques.
GIPSA continued to seek early resolution of employee complaints.
The Agency targeted several formal cases for resolution and worked
closely with the USDA's Employee Complaints and Adjudication Division
to reduce the Agency's caseload by 25 percent by the end of fiscal year
1999.
In addition, GIPSA strengthened its support for educational
initiatives, Land Grant and other minority institutions, the USDA
summer intern program, and the college recruitment initiative Ag-HOPE,
Agriculture Helps Our People Earn, at Alcorn State University, Lorman,
Mississippi. The Agency also strengthened its relationships with small
and disadvantaged businesses by entering into agreements with these
contractors where possible.
These are only some of the steps GIPSA has taken in the EEO/CR
area. The Department of Agriculture has made Civil Rights a major
priority and GIPSA is completely committed to supporting the
Department's efforts.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
To fund these important initiatives and to enable GIPSA to remain a
valuable part of American agriculture, GIPSA's budget request for
fiscal year 2001 is $33.5 million under current law for salaries and
expenses and $42.6 million for our Inspection and Weighing Services.
GIPSA also is submitting legislation to collect $23.1 million in new
user and license fees in fiscal year 2001.
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget proposes a current law
request for grain inspection of $14.2 million. There are proposed
increases of $150,000 to support GIPSA's increased role in
international trade services and trade activities, and $1,980,000 for
methods development activities. Proposed legislation to authorize the
collection of $3.7 million in new user fees to cover the costs of grain
standardization activities also is being submitted.
The budget proposes a current law request of $19.3 million for the
Agency's P&S Programs.
There are proposed increases of $1,200,000 to develop sophisticated
models to help identify anti-competitive behavior and examine causes
and competitive implications of contract livestock production; $800,000
to examine the competitive structure of the poultry industry;
$1,300,000 for rapid response teams within GIPSA; and $400,000 to
establish a swine contract library. Additionally, proposed legislation
is being submitted to authorize the collection of $19.3 million in new
license fees to cover the cost of the P&S Programs.
There are additional increases in the budget of $100,000 for Civil
Rights activities and $350,000 for an Information Staff that will
benefit both the grain inspection program and the P&S program.
The $150,000 increase to support GIPSA's increased role in
international trade services and trade activities would allow GIPSA to
increase international travel. GIPSA has become increasingly involved
in addressing international grain trade issues, including emerging
sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) issues and other technical barriers to
trade, as well as trade issues with the World Trade Organization (WTO)
and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). For example,
compelled to adhere to the requirements of WTO and NAFTA, some grain
and oilseed importing countries have created other barriers to limit or
restrict unencumbered trade.
GIPSA works cooperatively with associated agencies to resolve
critical issues that limit or restrict trade; assist individual
governments and organizations in developing and/or enhancing their
grain inspection and weighing capabilities; and enhance the
international market's understanding of the U.S. inspection and
weighing system.
The increase of $1,980,000 for methods development activities will
enable the Agency to begin the process of addressing the changes
occurring due to biotechnology. As the commercialization of
bioengineered crops has expanded, consumers worldwide have expressed an
interest in having access to better and more reliable information about
foods that do not contain biotech ingredients. In addition, U.S.
producers and industry representatives are seeking to ensure that
claims by competitors as to the biotech-free nature of their products
are not false and misleading. As American agriculture works to address
these complex and difficult issues involving the production and
marketing of bioengineered crops, it is vital that USDA establish the
framework to ensure the reliability of biotech crop detection methods.
Measuring the traits of newly engineered grains is of critical
importance in keeping grain markets open and fair. Of greater
importance is the United States government's ability to provide
leadership in establishing consistency in test methods to measure
bioengineered grain and oilseeds. Producers, grain handlers, processing
facilities, life science companies, and foreign buyers have all
expressed their full support of USDA-GIPSA providing this leadership.
The $1,200,000 increase to develop sophisticated models to help
identify anti-competitive behavior, and to examine the causes and
competitive implications of contract livestock production will allow
the Agency to look closely at potential anti-competitive behavior and
its effects. The increase will be used to (1) develop econometric
models to help identify collusion, predatory behavior, price
leadership, market allocation, failure to compete, price and non-price
discrimination, and other restraints in the procurement of cattle,
hogs, and lambs by meatpackers; and (2) examine economic variables
associated with production and marketing contracts for livestock, and
the effects of contracting on the structure of livestock production and
slaughter, and on competition in meatpacking and processing. This
initiative addresses complex issues that are important in examining the
competitiveness of firms and markets in the meatpacking industry. An
ongoing effort will be needed to develop methodology, databases, and
analyses to effectively monitor competitive behavior and the
competitive effects of structural changes in the meatpacking industry.
The increase of $800,000 to examine the competitive structure of
the poultry industry will assess the characteristics of markets for
poultry grower services and develop basic information about the
structure and competitive conditions associated with the market for
grower services. It will examine geographic distributions of growers
around integrators' facilities; production and transportation costs;
entry and exit conditions; contract terms; general grower-integrator
relationships; and how contract terms are implemented; such as which
chicks are assigned to which growers, feed weighing arrangements, and
measurement of factors used in settlements.
This project will provide fundamental information about the
relevant markets for grower services and address questions such as
whether treatment of growers varies among integrators and among growers
of a particular integrator. We have long focused our attention on
contract disputes. This project will begin to examine underlying
competitive conditions in the market for grower services.
The $1,300,000 increase will allow the Agency to designate a
special investigation rapid response team for each of the three
regional offices to handle the complex, high priority investigations.
These investigations are time sensitive that require expeditious
examination and analysis to protect constituent interests, and to
prevent or minimize major competitive or financial harm caused by
ongoing violations of the P&S Act. These teams will be comprise of an
economist/marketing specialist, legal specialist, auditor, and computer
specialist, all of whom are experts in their area and experienced in
P&S investigations. Full utilization of the team is anticipated within
in the respective region, however, multi-teams will be used for
investigations, when required.
The increase of $400,000 to establish a swine contract library will
allow the Agency to comply with Section 222 of the fiscal year 2000
Agriculture Appropriation Bill that mandates that GIPSA implement a
``library or catalog of each type of contract offered by packers to
swine producers.'' GIPSA is required to collect, compile, and publish a
monthly report on the estimated number of swine expected to be
delivered within the 6-month or 12-month periods following the date of
the report. This mandate is ``subject to the availability of
appropriations to carry out this section''; GIPSA was not provided
funding for this project.
Additional staff will be required to collect swine contracts on an
ongoing basis from all packers slaughtering over 100,000 head of swine
yearly. Contracts must be reviewed; all proprietary information
redacted from the contracts; and then assembled and cataloged. We
anticipate that the library or catalog to be accessible by the general
public through the Internet.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify on behalf of the Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration (GIPSA). I will be happy to answer any
questions the Committee may have.
______
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE
PREPARED STATEMENT OF R. RONALD BOSECKER, ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to submit a statement for this Committee's consideration in
support of the fiscal year 2001 budget request for the National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). This Agency now conducts the
census of agriculture which was begun in 1840, and the agricultural
statistics program created in 1842. The basic mission of both programs
is to provide factual information for and about the Nation's food and
agricultural industry.
As American farms and ranches have progressed to making greater use
of agricultural science and technology, the need for more detailed
information has increased. The periodic surveys and censuses conducted
by NASS contribute significantly to the overall information base for
agricultural producers, handlers, processors, wholesalers, retailers,
and ultimately, consumers. Voids in relevant, timely, accurate data
contribute to wasteful inefficiencies throughout the entire production
and marketing system.
The most critical complaints received by NASS occur when there is
an absence or shortage of official data available for a commodity, and
therefore that segment of agriculture is forced to operate with
insufficient information. Recent environmental concerns have meant that
entirely new surveys are needed to accurately measure the chemicals
used by the food and fiber industry. The globalization of agricultural
commodity markets also increases the demand for relevant, accurate,
timely, and impartial statistical information to assist those who sell
U.S. agricultural commodities worldwide. For example, information
concerning genetically engineered crops and crop varieties will enable
the United States to better compete in the world market.
The crop, livestock, and other related statistics are provided
throughout the year, in cooperation with each State Department of
Agriculture. This program, which began in 1917, has served the
agricultural industry well and is often cited by others as an excellent
model of successful State-Federal cooperation. The addition of the
census of agriculture, which provides a wealth of detailed information
at the State and county level, has strengthened NASS's partnership with
its State cooperators. This joint State-Federal program helps meet
State and national data needs while minimizing overall costs by
consolidating both staff and resources, eliminating duplication of
effort, and reducing the reporting burden on the Nation's farm and
ranch operators. The success of this partnership was demonstrated this
past year as NASS, through its State-Federal cooperation, was able to
complete the census in almost half the time of previous censuses,
increase the total response, and, through the use of a toll-free
number, better respond to questions from farmers and ranchers
completing the census questionnaires. NASS's 45 field offices, which
cover all 50 States (New England States are combined), support the six
goals and outcomes in the Research, Education, and Economics (REE)
mission area strategic plan by providing statistical information that
serves national, State, and local data needs.
NASS statistics contribute to providing fair markets where buyers
and sellers alike have access to the same official statistics. This
prevents markets from being unduly influenced by ``inside'' information
which might unfairly affect market prices for the gain of an individual
market participant.
With the enactment of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996, the demand for agricultural statistics has
increased as producers make production decisions based solely on market
information. Empirical evidence indicates that an increase in
information improves the efficiency of commodity markets. Information
on the competitiveness of our Nation's agricultural industry will
become increasingly important as producers rely more on the world
market for their income.
NASS's agricultural statistics are used throughout the agricultural
sector to evaluate supplies and determine competitive prices for world
marketing of U.S. commodities, which directly supports Goal 1 of the
REE Strategic Plan: Through research and education, empower the
agricultural system with knowledge that will improve domestic
production, processing, and marketing to successfully compete in the
global market.
Through new technology, the products produced in the United States
are changing rapidly. This also means that the agricultural statistics
program must be dynamic and able to respond to the demand for coverage
of newly emerging products. For example, genetic engineering technology
will be producing new commodity varieties, such as BT corn and cotton,
and Roundup Ready soybeans. Data users are already requesting
information on genetically modified crops in order to help assess the
magnitude and impact of these new varieties.
Not only are NASS statistical reports important to assess the
current supply and demand of agricultural commodities, but they are
also extremely valuable to farm organizations, commodity groups, and
public officials who analyze agricultural policy, foreign trade,
construction, and environmental programs, research, rural development,
and many other activities. NASS numbers are scrutinized very closely by
producers, agribusinesses, industry analysts, economists, investors, as
well as government policy makers. As a result of their analysis, major
decisions are made that affect the Nation's agricultural economy.
All reports issued by NASS's Agricultural Statistics Board are made
available to the public at previously announced release times to ensure
that everyone is given equal access to the information. NASS has been a
leader among Federal agencies in providing electronic access to
information. All of NASS's national statistical reports and data
products, including graphics, are available on the Internet, as well as
in printed form. Customers are able to electronically subscribe to NASS
reports by clicking on the appropriate release. A summary of NASS and
other USDA statistical data are produced annually in USDA's
Agricultural Statistics, available on the Internet through the NASS
Home Page, on CD-ROM disc, or in hard copy. Each of NASS's 45 field
offices have Home Pages on the Internet, which provide access to
special State statistical reports and information on current local
commodity conditions and production.
Beginning in fiscal year 1997, NASS received funding for the census
of agriculture which is conducted every 5 years. The transfer of the
responsibility for the census of agriculture to USDA streamlines
Federal agricultural data collection activities and has improved the
efficiency, timeliness, and quality of the census data. The release of
the 1997 Census of Agriculture on February 1, 1999, came exactly one
year from the date the questionnaires were due to be returned by the
Nation's farmers and ranchers.
Statistical research is conducted to improve methods and techniques
used in collecting and processing agricultural data. This research is
directed toward providing higher quality census and survey data with
less burden to respondents, producing more accurate and timely
statistics to data users, and increasing the efficiency of the entire
process. For example, NASS has been a leader in the research and
development of satellite imagery to improve agricultural statistics.
The NASS statistical research program strives to improve methods and
techniques for obtaining agricultural statistics with an acceptable
level of accuracy. The growing diversity and specialization of the
Nation's farm operations have greatly complicated procedures for
producing accurate agricultural statistics. Development of new sampling
and survey methodology, along with intensive use of telephone and face-
to-face contacts and computer technology enable NASS to keep pace with
an increasingly complex agricultural industry. Considerable new
research will be directed at improving the 2002 Census of Agriculture
to be conducted in 2003.
NASS performs a number of statistical services for other Federal,
State, and producer organizations on a cost-reimbursable basis. In
addition, NASS has an expanding international program to provide
technical assistance to a number of countries on a cost-reimbursable
basis.
MAJOR ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE (NASS)
The primary activities of NASS are to conduct periodic surveys and
the census of agriculture every 5 years to meet the current data needs
of the agricultural industry. The periodic surveys include the
collection, summarization, analysis, and publication of reliable
agricultural forecasts and estimates. Farmers, ranchers, and
agribusinesses voluntarily respond to a series of nationwide surveys
about crops, livestock, prices, chemical use and other agricultural
activities each year. Periodic surveys are conducted during the growing
season to measure the impact weather, pests, and other factors have on
crop production. Frequent surveys are also needed for food products
that are perishable. Many crop surveys are supplemented by actual field
observations in which various plant counts and measurements are made.
Administrative data from other State and USDA agencies, as well as data
on imports and exports, are thoroughly analyzed and utilized as
appropriate. NASS prepares estimates for over 120 crops and 45
livestock items which are published annually in almost 400 separate
reports.
Agricultural reports issued by NASS include: number of farms and
land in farms; acreage, yield, and production of grains, hay, oilseeds,
cotton, tobacco, major fruits and vegetables, floriculture, and
selected specialty crops; stocks of grains; inventories and production
of hogs, cattle, sheep and wool, goats, catfish, trout, poultry, eggs,
and dairy products; prices received by farmers for products; farm real
estate values and land rental rates; prices paid by farmers for inputs
and services; cold storage supplies; agricultural labor and wage rates;
agricultural chemical usage; crop production cultural practices; and
other data related to the agricultural economy.
The census of agriculture provides national, State, and county data
for the United States on the agricultural economy every 5 years,
including: number of farms, land use, production expenses, farm product
values, value of land and buildings, farm size and characteristics of
farm operators, market value of agricultural production sold, acreage
of major crops, inventory of livestock and poultry, and farm irrigation
practices. The census of agriculture is the only source for this
information on a local level which is extremely important to the
agricultural community. Detailed information at the county level helps
agricultural organizations, suppliers, handlers, processors, and
wholesalers and retailers better plan their operations. Important
demographic information supplied by the census of agriculture also
provides a very valuable data base for developing public policy for
rural areas. The local detailed data provided by the census of
agriculture which facilitates locality-based policy and business
decisions supports Goal 5 of the REE mission area Strategic Plan:
Empower people and communities, through research-based information and
education, to address the economic and social problems facing our
youth, families, and communities.
Nearly two-thirds of NASS's staff are located in the 45 field
offices; 24 of these offices are collocated with State Departments of
Agriculture or land-grant universities. NASS's State Statistical
Offices issue approximately 9,000 different reports each year and
maintain Internet Home Pages to electronically provide their State
information to the public.
NASS has developed a broad environmental statistics program under
the Department's water quality and food safety programs. Until 1991,
there was a complete void in the availability of reliable pesticide
usage data which became evident during the Alar situation with apples.
Therefore, in 1991 NASS cooperated with other USDA agencies, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug
Administration, to implement comprehensive chemical usage surveys that
collect data on certain crops in selected States. Beginning in fiscal
year 1997, NASS also began survey programs to acquire more information
on Integrated Pest Management (IPM), additional farm pesticide uses,
and post-harvest application of pesticides and other chemicals applied
to commodities after leaving the farm. These programs have resulted in
significant new chemical use data, which are important additions to the
data base. These surveys, conducted in cooperation with the Economic
Research Service, also collect detailed economic and farming practice
information for the purpose of determining the use of IPM practices as
well as to analyze the productivity and the profitability of different
levels of chemical use. American farms and ranches manage half the land
mass in the United States, underscoring the value of complete and
accurate statistics on chemical use and farming practices to
effectively address public concerns about the environmental effects of
agricultural production. NASS's chemical use survey programs supports
both Goals 2 and 4 of the REE Strategic Plan which relate to ensuring
an adequate food and fiber supply and the promotion of food safety, and
enhancing the quality of the environment.
NASS conducts a number of special surveys as well as provides
consulting services for many USDA agencies and other Federal, State,
and private agencies or organizations on a cost-reimbursable basis.
Consulting services include assistance with survey methodology,
questionnaire and sample design, information resource management, and
statistical analysis. NASS has been very active in assisting USDA
agencies in programs that monitor nutrition, food safety, environmental
quality, and customer satisfaction. In cooperation with State
Departments of Agriculture, land-grant universities, and industry
groups, NASS conducted 122 special surveys in fiscal year 1999 covering
a wide range of issues such as farm injury, nursery and horticulture,
farm finance, fruits and nuts, vegetables, and cropping practices.
NASS provides technical assistance and training to improve
agricultural survey programs in other countries in cooperation with
other Government agencies on a cost-reimbursable basis. NASS's
international programs focus on developing countries, such as those in
Asia, Africa, and Central and South America, as well as emerging
markets countries in Eastern Europe. Accurate information is essential
in these countries for the orderly marketing of farm products. NASS
works directly with countries undergoing the transition from centrally-
planned to market economies by assisting them in applying modern
statistical methodology, including sample survey techniques. This past
year, NASS provided assistance to Chile, China, Ecuador, Ethiopia,
Ghana, Guinea, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Nicaragua, Russia, South Africa, and
Ukraine and received approximately $.9 million in reimbursements for
these services.
NASS annually seeks input on improvements and priorities from the
public through: displays at major commodity meetings, data user
meetings with representatives from agribusinesses and commodity groups,
special briefings for agricultural leaders during the release of major
reports, and through numerous individual contacts, especially those
made at the grass roots level through NASS's 45 field offices. As a
result of these activities, the Agency has made many adjustments to its
agricultural statistics program, published reports, and electronic
access capabilities to better meet the statistical needs of customers
and stakeholders.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 PLANS
The fiscal year 2001 budget request is for $100,615,000. This is a
net increase of $1,282,000 from the fiscal year 2000 current estimate.
The fiscal year 2001 request includes changes in activities
associated with the census of agriculture, implementation of a monthly
hog survey to improve market information, expansion of the agricultural
chemical use surveys, and improvements to computer security to assure
the integrity of market sensitive data prior to official release.
A net decrease of $1,490,000 and 12 staff-years for the census of
agriculture.
The 2001 census of agriculture budget request is for $15,000,000.
This includes an increase of $410,000 and 5 staff-years for increased
activities associated with preparations for the 2002 Census of
Agriculture. It also reflects a decrease of $1,900,000 and 17 staff-
years for the Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership Survey. The
survey will be completed in 2000 and is being removed from the budget
since it is to be conducted only once every 10 years following
alternate censuses of agriculture.
A net increase of $572,000 and 4 staff-years consisting of
$1,272,000 for the monthly hog survey and a decrease of $700,000 for
the quarterly hog survey.
Title IX--Livestock Mandatory Reporting, Subtitle C-Related Swine
Reporting Provisions, Section 931. Improvement of Hogs and Pigs
Inventory Report, which passed as part of the fiscal year 2000
Agriculture Appropriations Bill in October 1999, states that the
Secretary of Agriculture will publish on a monthly basis the Hogs and
Pigs Inventory Report, and that for a period of 8 quarters after the
implementation of the monthly report, the Secretary shall continue to
maintain and publish on a quarterly basis the Hogs and Pigs Inventory
Report. The purpose of a monthly survey is to provide more timely
information on market supplies of pigs than the present quarterly
surveys provide.
The current NASS quarterly Hogs and Pigs report provides detailed
information, by State, for the 17 largest hog producing States,
accounting for 93 percent of the total U.S. hog inventory, together
with all ``other States'' combined in order to provide U.S. totals. The
proposed funding increase of $572,000 would provide, on a monthly
basis, total breeding herd inventory, number of sows farrowed, pigs
born, and number of sows bred. An offset of $700,000 will limit
comparable quarterly and monthly State-level data to nine States
covering approximately 77 percent of the total U.S. breeding herd
inventory plus the U.S. total. Full funding at $1.272 million is
necessary for NASS to implement a monthly breeding herd program which
mirrors the existing quarterly program but provides important breeding
herd data on a monthly basis. The goal is to provide more timely
information on both the location and supplies of pigs to facilitate
more orderly marketing of hogs.
An increase of $800,000 and 4 staff-years is requested for
expansion of pesticide use surveys.
In order to accurately analyze the impact of chemical use as
directed by the Food Quality Protection Act, EPA and USDA, together
with other agencies and industry officials, have requested an expansion
of NASS's current pesticide data collection program to include coverage
of additional crops, sectors, and States. This additional funding would
enable NASS to expand the number of field crops covered in the current
pesticide use survey program in order to address existing data gaps.
Pesticide usage survey information collected by NASS provides accurate
data which are critically needed by the agricultural industry, EPA, and
others with an interest in the evaluation of pesticides, setting of
pesticide residue standards, and the determination of exposure risks.
In the absence of actual data, default assumptions or worst case
scenarios are often used in chemical risk assessment analysis.
An increase of $1,400,000 is requested for development of NASS
Computer Security Architecture.
There is a growing need for cyber-security given the increased
incidences and threats of the loss, misuse, unauthorized access to, or
modification of information on computer systems. The level of
sophistication displayed by hackers and others also supports the need
for security reforms, such as the need for early warning systems for
attacks, intrusions, and viruses. Cyber-security has replaced Year 2000
as the top priority in the information technology community.
Information security is of vital importance to maintain NASS's
credibility given the market sensitivity of the reports released as
well as the confidential nature of the data collected by NASS from the
Nation's farmers, ranchers, and agribusinesses.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to submit this for the record.
______
NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION
PREPARED STATEMENT OF NORMAN G. COOPER, DIRECTOR
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
appear before you to discuss the fiscal year 2001 budget request for
the National Appeals Division.
INTRODUCTION
The National Appeals Division--NAD--was established by the
Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to the Reorganization Act of 1994.
The Act consolidated the appellate functions and staffs of several USDA
agencies to provide for appeal hearings of adverse agency decisions,
and review of appeal determinations by the NAD Director. NAD appeals
currently involve program decisions of the Farm Service Agency, Risk
Management Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Rural
Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Housing Service, and Rural
Utilities Service. NAD is headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia, and
has regional offices located in Indianapolis, Indiana; Memphis,
Tennessee; and Lakewood, Colorado. NAD's staff of 133 includes 75
hearing officers Nationwide.
MISSION
Our mission is to conduct evidentiary administrative appeal
hearings and reviews arising out of program decisions of specific USDA
agencies. Our strategic goal is to conduct timely hearings and issue
timely and well-reasoned determinations that correctly interpret
applicable regulations. NAD's mission is statutorily specific, but the
administration of such is dynamic and challenging, given the
complexities of changing laws, regulations and policies.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
NAD is requesting $12,610,000 in direct appropriations for fiscal
year 2001. This request represents an increase of $903,000 over the
fiscal year 2000 current estimate. The increase is comprised of
$589,000 for training costs, and $314,000 for pay costs.
NAD employees must possess a broad, in-depth knowledge of many
areas, including adjudication procedures as well as the laws and
regulations of subject agencies. The hearing and review officers must
stay abreast of changes in the law, regulations and agency policies, in
order to issue determinations that withstand challenge in the Federal
courts. Continuous training and development is essential to providing
the public a competent and fair administrative appeal system that
recognizes the rights of program participants and promotes the lawful
operations of agency programs. NAD's budget request for training will
be used to sustain high-quality skills development that is critical to
accomplishing our goal.
We are also requesting $314,000 for pay costs in order to maintain
current staffing levels. In the last five years, our funding level has
gone from $11,846,000 to a level of $11,707,000. During this time, NAD
has absorbed approximately $1,454,000 in pay costs. This trend
adversely impacts NAD's ability to execute its mission. To help offset
these costs, NAD offered four buyouts in fiscal year 1997, and has
reduced costs through attrition and other cost reduction initiatives.
Additional pay cost absorption will negatively affect our ability to
provide an effective administrative appeals system.
CONCLUSION
NAD's administrative appeals process is a cost-effective means for
USDA program participants to have adverse agency decisions fairly and
impartially adjudicated in a timely manner consistent with the intent
of Congress. The initiatives in the fiscal year 2001 budget will help
ensure that we accomplish our mission in a more efficient and effective
manner--making correct determinations and continuing to assure the
rights of all participants in appeals. The initiatives provide the
groundwork for accomplishing the goals and objectives outlined in NAD's
Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plan. More importantly, these
initiatives assure farmers, ranchers, cooperatives, agencies, and
others an avenue to a fair and equitable adjudicative process.
That concludes my statement, and I look forward to working with the
Committee on the fiscal year 2001 National Appeals Division budget.
______
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
PREPARED STATEMENT OF PEARLIE S. REED, CHIEF
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee I am providing a copy of
the statement that I used before the House of Representatives for your
consideration and use.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for the
opportunity to appear before you today. Conservation is important to
me. I've spent most of my life and my professional career devoted to
addressing environmental problems and getting sound conservation on the
ground.
I want to thank the Committee for their support during the fiscal
year 2000 appropriations process. I promise you that I will do my best
to make sure NRCS effectively and efficiently delivers the conservation
programs and projects we have been directed to oversee.
I will continue our efforts to develop web-based tools that
increase employee productivity in service centers and give many farmers
and ranchers electronic access to automation that can assist them in
making conservation decisions. As Chairman of the National Food and
Agriculture Council, I am also working closely with the other field
based agency heads to ensure that automation tools in service centers
are user friendly for both our customers and employees and that
databases are seamless between the agencies and our partners.
I am hopeful that we will be able to work with the Committee to
continue your funding support for conservation in fiscal year 2001 and
address the top conservation issues facing private landowners and
operators, farmers and ranchers, and local communities.
In recent years, public concern for the environment and demand for
NRCS technical assistance has increased dramatically. Public concern
has grown about pollutants from animal feeding operations, improper
application of pesticides and fertilizers, over-application of
nutrients, continued excessive soil erosion, and poor land use
decisions at the individual and community level. Invasive plant species
on agricultural land, pfiesteria and other harmful algal blooms along
our coasts, hypoxia in coastal waters, and declines in salmon and other
fish and wildlife are leading the public to demand that agricultural
producers act to address these natural resource issues.
However, few farmers and ranchers are able to respond to these
demands on their own, let alone coordinate efforts at the watershed and
regional scales. They frequently call upon the NRCS at the local level
to provide them with technical assistance to address these emerging
concerns and financial assistance from USDA conservation programs to
help share the cost of implementing mitigating conservation measures.
In addition, these concerns have required that we increase our
investment in new, cost-effective, science-based practices that
producers can install, operate, and maintain. I have accelerated our
work on identifying appropriate technologies with the Agriculture
Research Service and with other research entities. I have made an
initial investment to improve the technology transfer and technical
training of NRCS' field employees to meet the demands for new and
innovative solutions.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the NRCS conducts a National Resources
Inventory (NRI) every five years. Recently, the results of the 1997
study were published. Significant NRI results include:
--Loss of prime and important farmland. From 1992 to 1997, nearly 16
million acres of agricultural and forestland were developed. We
are now losing 3 million acres per year, double what was lost
each year from 1982 to 1992.
--Soil erosion. Nearly 2 billion tons of soil erosion is occurring
annually on the Nation's non-Federal lands. Despite gains in
erosion control during the past 15 years, there have been no
substantial improvements since 1995.
--Wetland losses. The U.S. still has not reached the goal of ``no net
loss''. But wetland preservation efforts, like the Wetlands
Reserve Program are helping us move towards that goal.
--Grazing lands losses. The nation's grazing lands total 583 million
acres and include pastureland, rangeland, and grazed
forestland. Since 1982, total pastureland and rangeland have
declined by nearly 26 million acres.
The fiscal year 2001 budget proposals seek to address many of these
significant NRI trends.
DISCRETIONARY FUNDING
Overall, the fiscal year 2001 President's budget proposes a net
decrease of $6.2 million from fiscal year 2000 Appropriations level for
NRCS' discretionary accounts, including supplemental funding provided
in November 1999 for natural disasters. These budget proposals for
discretionary funding reflect difficult choices for addressing the most
significant environmental and conservation concerns.
Conservation operations
Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2001 budget request proposes an
increase of $86.4 million for Conservation Operations from the fiscal
year 2000 appropriations level of $660.8 million. This increase is
essential for NRCS to fund the necessary technical assistance
components so vital to getting sound conservation on the ground.
Specifically, the budget includes a $28 million increase for
providing basic technical assistance for private landowners who are not
typically participants in CCC cost-share conservation programs.
Assistance to these landowners and local entities has eroded in recent
years. In addition, because of increasing budget constraints, we have
had to indefinitely postpone essential training, eliminate key field
positions, minimize partnerships, compromise administrative support,
and postpone replacement of aging equipment. While we have taken
internal steps through automation to improve our processes and increase
the time available to provide direct customer assistance, we would like
to improve our service even more by providing additional trained
personnel in the local communities. However, we cannot do this without
additional funding assistance.
The budget also proposes a $20 million increase to provide
additional staff needed to perform the increased workload associated
with developing nutrient management plans for Animal Feeding Operations
(AFO). This is an integral part of the President's Clean Water Action
Plan (CWAP). During the past 24 months, some form of state or local
regulation on AFOs has been debated in 34 states. It is clear that
solving the nation's nonpoint source pollution is critical to making
drinking water safe and lakes, streams and rivers clean. NRCS provides
leadership and technical assistance to local communities in addressing
the environmental concerns associated with AFOs. Specifically, NRCS
helps set the nutrient management technical standards, develops
comprehensive nutrient management plans with producers, including the
development and design of manure management systems, and helps
producers implement components of the plans.
The AFO related workload is tremendous. Based on our latest
workload analysis, there are approximately 300,000 AFOs that will need
some form of nutrient management planning in order to address the
concerns of the Clean Water Act. With the proposed budget, we
anticipate that we can complete the second year of a ten-year work plan
to address this AFO workload. In fiscal year 2000, Congress provided an
additional $8 million for this increased workload, bringing the total
funding for AFO technical assistance to $56 million. The fiscal year
2001 budget proposes a total AFO workload effort of approximately $87
million under the Conservation Operations account, which includes a
redirection of $11 million from within the technical assistance from
other activities that are currently being provided within the account.
In other CWAP-related activities, the budget also proposes an
increase of $13 million to provide $10 million in grants on a
competitive basis to local organizations to coordinate watershed
restoration activities among our Federal, State, and local partners
allowing resources to be more effectively targeted and $3 million to
enable additional environmental monitoring and research work that would
be used to implement water quality assessment actions and set local and
national priorities.
Fifteen million dollars is needed to support the Administration's
Global Climate Change Initiative by expanding soil carbon studies and
conducting pilot projects to better understand the impacts of climate
change on soil carbon status. NRCS global change related activities
have focussed on delivering technical assistance to help American
farmers and ranchers cope with either human-caused climate change or
natural climate variability that influences so many of their land
management and farming decisions. NRCS efforts have emphasized the
sequestration of atmospheric carbon in the soil, which increases the
organic matter of the soil, and leads to improved rainfall
infiltration, larger water and nutrient holding capacity, and reduced
erosion. The increased funding would enable us to expand our
understanding of soil carbon exchanges and develop new technologies and
methods for improving carbon sequestration that will aid both producers
and the wider American public.
Five million dollars is proposed to help farmers plan, develop, and
implement conservation based biomass production systems, and an
additional $5 million is requested again this year for the Community
Federal Information Partnership. This will support the Administration's
Livability Initiative through the development of consistent and
compatible geospatial data systems.
Proposed funding remains stable for soil surveys, snow survey and
water forecasting, and plant material centers. These functions play a
vital role in the delivery of conservation services to private
landowners. Soil surveys help us understand soils, snow surveys provide
information on future water supplies important to water conservation,
and the plant material centers provide native conservation plants
unavailable from other sources that help solve natural resource
problems. Additional funds are not requested for mandatory pay
increases or inflationary costs.
Grazing Lands.--In fiscal year 2000, Congress provided $17 million
for the Grazing Land Conservation Initiative, a $2 million increase in
funding from past years. The fiscal year 2001 budget proposes to
continue funding at that level. At the $17 million level, NRCS is able
to maintain staff needed to provide technical assistance to private
grazing landowners and managers.
In fiscal year 1999, approximately 700 NRCS employees allocated a
majority of their time to providing technical assistance to over 28,000
individuals for grazing related issues. The total impact of NRCS
assistance affected more than 20 million acres of grazing land. In
addition, NRCS staff provided assistance with 790 grazing land
demonstration projects nationwide that demonstrated grazing land
technologies and management, and conducted over 1,800 education and
awareness activities (workshops, field days, tours, etc.) involving
more than 100,000 individuals. With the increase in fiscal year 2000
funding for Grazing Lands Conservation, NRCS expects to build upon the
fiscal year 1999 effort and impact on more than 22 million acres of
grazing land.
Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D)
Through the RC&D program, NRCS works in partnership with local
volunteers organized as Resource Conservation and Development Councils
representing multi-county areas. Council members include local civic
and elected officials who set an agenda to care for and protect their
natural resources while improving local economies and quality of life.
RC&D Councils, established as non-profit entities, undertake projects
in the areas of natural resource improvement, recreation and tourism,
and economic development. These Councils operate on the premise that
local people know the most about the local natural resource and
development needs. Currently, 315 USDA designated RC&Ds serve 2,304
counties in all 50 states, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin.
Information gathered from our new RC&D management database
indicates that councils and their partners are very active in the
development and expansion of rural business. In fiscal year 1999, 248
new businesses were created with RC&D assistance. RC&Ds helped expand
284 businesses, and financially assisted 678 businesses with non-RC&D
funds. An estimated 3,000 jobs have been created through Area projects.
The councils also are very effective in obtaining grant funds to
implement their projects. Those Areas reporting in our database brought
in over $312.8 million to rural America. Efforts to improve natural
resources have resulted in improvement of 500,000 acres of wildlife
habitat, improvement of 510,000 acres of lakes, and 1,500 miles of
streams. Educational projects have helped 556,000 people develop new
skills. RC&D projects have helped 446,500 economic or socially
disadvantaged people.
Mr. Chairman, this program plays a vital role in rural communities.
The President's budget proposes an increase of $1 million to support
mandatory pay increases that cannot be absorbed without seriously
degrading the program's success and benefits.
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
In fiscal year 2000, the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
account was reduced by $7.8 million in financial assistance from the
appropriated level of $99.443 million as a result of the rescission
associated with Public Law 106-113.
For fiscal year 2001, the budget proposes a decrease of $88.2
million from the fiscal year 2000 appropriations level of $171.6
million. This includes a reduction of $80 million in Emergency
Watershed Protection (EWP) supplemental funding provided in fiscal year
2000 and an $8.2 million reduction in financial and technical
assistance provided under the account reflecting a redirection of
administration priorities. The requested level of $83.4 million for the
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations account reflects the minimum
needed to address high priority sub-watershed projects under the Public
Law 78-534 and 83-566 program authorities.
Also included in the budget proposal is a new loan program for
helping communities rehabilitate aging Public Law 78-534 and 83-566
watershed structures that were built 30 to 50 years ago. A recent
survey has revealed rehabilitation needs for more than 2,200 of these
structures in 22 states for an estimated cost of $540 million. The
budget proposes a $4.2 million subsidy budget authority that would be
used to support a $60 million program loan level to provide loans to
state and local governments to help them begin to address this problem.
Under the proposal, Rural Development offices would service the new
loans and NRCS would provide technical assistance to communities
receiving the loans on a reimbursable basis.
The budget also includes a proposal to use $3 million in funding to
provide financial and technical assistance to communities to implement
disaster mitigation plans.
Emergency Watershed Protection.--Of the $80 million in supplemental
funding appropriated in fiscal year 2000 to repair damages to waterways
and watersheds resulting from natural disasters, NRCS has committed
funds to 28 states. Currently, we have 173 EWP ongoing projects in 46
states. EWP provides vital assistance to local communities when
disasters occur. For Hurricane Floyd, for example, NRCS provided
assistance to 98 producers in 20 counties with the disposal of
approximately 2 million dead animals. By having funding available, the
agency was able to quickly provide the much needed financial and
technical assistance. In fiscal year 2000, Congress provided $8 million
for pilot rehabilitation projects in New Mexico, Ohio, Mississippi and
Wisconsin. The State Conservationists in each state have been working
with local watershed project sponsors and state dam safety officials to
select high priority projects. We have set aside $2 million for each
state and expect that construction will begin by this fall and will
continue through fiscal year 2001. While we are in the planning process
for these projects, local sponsors must obtain land rights, easements,
permits and other project administrative needs, as well as finding
financing for 35 percent of the total estimated cost of rehabilitation.
Watershed surveys and planning
Funding has been requested for fiscal year 2001 at the same level
as the fiscal year 2000 appropriation, $10.368 million.
Forestry Incentives Program
In fiscal year 2000 the Forestry Incentives Program was reduced by
$948 thousand in financial assistance from the appropriated level of
$6.325 million as a result of the rescission associated with Public Law
106-113. The President's budget does not propose funding for fiscal
year 2001.
COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FUNDED CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Conservation Security Program
Under Secretary Lyons has highlighted the budget proposal in his
testimony, I would like to provide an overview of how NRCS would
deliver the program if it were authorized and funded.
First, we would issue program regulations in an expedited manner.
We would base our program delivery on past successes and complement
other conservation programs. In the field, we would quickly train our
existing staff and use conservation district employees to help us roll
out the program.
The program will be designed to reward those who are currently
maintaining sound stewardship on their private lands. It will ideally
also provide an incentive for those who wish to increase their level of
conservation treatment. Under the program, farmers and ranchers would
receive an annual payment based on the level of conservation treatment
covered by the program agreement. One option could have payments
covering conservation measures by land use. Examples could be crop
residue management for cropland, proper grazing use for range and
pastureland, integrated pest management, hayland management, and
irrigation water management for irrigated land.
Our goal is to gain conservation benefits. The Secretary has asked
us to provide the opportunity for those not covered by current
commodity programs such as owners and operators of grazing land,
orchards, vineyards, as well as those covered by the current farm
programs. Both of these groups are the NRCS traditional customers.
Essentially, the program would be used to help keep past investments
in-tact and reward good stewards of our natural resources.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
This program, which began in late 1996, has provided producers and
landowners with incentives to implement long term, comprehensive
conservation farm plans. We've had some growing pains. We've listened
to public and Congressional concerns, and we are taking action to
reduce program processing problems and overall make the program more
responsive.
The fiscal year 2001 funding request reflects the full $200 million
authorized level under current law and, an additional $125 million for
a total program level of $325 million. Demand for EQIP has historically
exceeded available funding. For example, approximately 52,000 program
applications were received in fiscal year 1999 with only 36 percent, or
approximately 19,000 applications, approved. Cost-share assistance
programs like EQIP provide a significant incentive to installing
voluntary conservation practices based on local and national
conservation issues. Components of the $325 million EQIP budget
include: $178.5 million for AFO related activities, $16 million for
priority environmental issues on American Indian and Alaskan Native
lands, $10.5 million for Pacific salmon habitat recovery and $3.6
million to fund demonstration or pilot projects concerning methane gas
recovery and utilization projects. The remaining $116.4 million would
be available for local priority conservation concerns.
Wetlands Reserve Program
Re-authorized under the 1996 Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act (1996 Act), the program is authorized to enroll a total of
975,000 acres in permanent easements, 30-year easements, and wetland
restoration cost-share agreements.
Through the end of fiscal year 2000, the agency will have enrolled
approximately 935,000 acres toward the total authorized for the
program. The fiscal year 2001 budget proposes to enroll the remaining
40,000 acres and under proposed legislation, to enroll an additional
210,000 acres for a total acreage enrollment of 250,000 acres. The
proposed legislation would also increase the total annual enrollment to
250,000 acres through 2010. This requested program level is needed in
order for us to achieve a no-net loss of acres per year and begin to
achieve our national goal of an increase in wetlands annually.
Farmland Protection Program
According to the Census of Agriculture, nearly 85 percent of
domestic fruit and vegetable production and 80 percent of our dairy
products come from urban influenced areas. Rapid development and urban
sprawl have significantly threatened this valuable and productive
farmland.
As part of the Farm Safety Net proposal, the budget proposes
legislation to fund the Farmland Protection Program at $65 million
level annually. The initial funding level of $35 million authorized by
the 1996 Act was exhausted at the end of fiscal year 1998. The FPP
provides assistance to communities interested in protecting unique or
prime agricultural lands from conversion to non-agricultural uses. The
FPP provides matching funds to states, tribes or local government
entities to acquire conservation easements or other interests in land.
It helps protect strategic farmland from urbanization and ensures that
valuable farmlands are preserved for future generations.
If the requested $65 million is provided in fiscal year 2001, NRCS
would be able to reduce the significant loss of prime agricultural
lands and protect approximately 130,000 farmland acres from conversion.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
First authorized by the 1996 FAIR Act, the program provides
incentives to farmers, ranchers, and other landowners to install
conservation practices that improve wildlife habitats. These practices
include native grass restoration, riparian area restoration, and
aquatic habitat establishment. The budget proposes, under new
legislation, an annual funding level of $50 million since all available
funds from the original authorization have been used.
Conservation Reserve Program
NRCS provides technical assistance to CCC in the delivery of this
conservation program. Under proposed legislation, the acreage
enrollment caps would be increased from 36.4 million acres to 40
million acres in fiscal year 2001. The acreage increase, coupled with
bonus payments proposed for continuous signup, would help address the
significant problem of soil erosion and improve the quality of our
nation's waterways.
The Department has concern regarding technical assistance funding
to implement the WRP and CRP. These two programs fall under a
legislative cap in the Commodity Credit Corporation fund transfers,
known as Section 11. Although $35 million in emergency supplemental
appropriations was enacted in May, 1999 for the fiscal year 2000
program to make up for shortfalls under this cap, our most recent
estimates raise the possibility that amounts available may not be
sufficient. This matter is under review within the Administration.
CONSERVATION THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS
Mr. Chairman, as you know, NRCS has operated since its creation
through voluntary cooperative partnerships with individuals, state and
local governments, and other Federal agencies and officials. That
partnership is as important today as it ever was. In fact, it may be
even more important, if we are to meet the challenging conservation
problems facing our Nation's farmers and ranchers.
NRCS has worked with 4.7 million farmers, ranchers, producers,
operators, private landowners and local communities to help them
conserve their natural resources by gaining knowledge about new
conservation problems and solutions, by providing guidance and advice,
and by developing and helping implement conservation plans. NRCS does
this by working with 3,000 local conservation districts that have been
established by state law and with American Indian Tribes and Alaska
Native Governments.
State and local governments contribute substantially, with both
people and funding to complement NRCS technical and financial
assistance. Approximately 7,750 FTE of assistance is provided annually
by NRCS partners and volunteers. In addition, state and local
governments match Federal funding by $1.60 for every one Federal dollar
provided for conservation. And Americans have generously given their
time to volunteer with NRCS as part of the Earth Team Volunteers
effort. In fiscal year 1999, over 29,000 people volunteered their time
locally, working approximately 350 FTE. The Points of Light Foundation
calculated the value of this volunteer service at $10.4 million.
And we work closely with other Federal agencies such as our sister
agencies in the Department of Agriculture, the Forest Service, Farm
Service Agency, and Rural Development, as well as Agricultural Research
Service, Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
and other Departments, including the Environmental Protection Agency.
Good conservation doesn't just happen. It takes all of us,
including Congress, working together to make it happen. This concludes
my statement, Mr. Chairman. I will be glad to answer any questions.
______
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SALLY THOMPSON, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
present the fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer--OCFO--and the Department's Working Capital Fund--
WCF.
I would like to thank you, your colleagues, and your respective
staff members for taking this time to focus on the multiple financial
management challenges facing USDA and how we are working to address
these concerns. Secretary Glickman has made resolving these issues a
major priority, and I thank him for his strong leadership. I also want
to recognize this committee's staff for your efforts on behalf of
improving financial management. We are moving forward, and this budget
request highlights the next steps that we must take to fully achieve
USDA's financial management objectives.
During fiscal year 1999, USDA made significant progress towards
improving its financial credibility and accountability. The following
examples give you a glimpse of our progress:
Financial Statements.--USDA submitted its consolidated financial
statements to the Office of Management and Budget--OMB--by the March 1
deadline. The previous year's submission arrived at OMB five months
past the deadline. USDA has six stand-alone audits, three of which---
the Food and Nutrition Service, the Rural Telephone Bank, and the
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation--received unqualified--clean--audit
opinions. An unqualified audit opinion assures policy makers, the
Congress, program recipients, and taxpayers that these financial
statements reflect credible, reliable information that complies with
laws, regulations, and accepted authoritative requirements. These clean
opinions on three stand-alone audits are a major step toward USDA
achieving an unqualified audit opinion on its consolidated financial
statements in fiscal year 2001.
Debt Collection.--USDA collected $136.2 million in delinquent debt
through Treasury's Administrative Offset Program and other debt-
collection tools during fiscal year 1999. This figure represents a 45
percent increase over the $93.9 million collected in fiscal year 1998
and a 90-percent increase over the $71.5 million collected in fiscal
year 1997. In addition, USDA lowered the amount of delinquent debt in
its overall loan portfolio from $7.5 billion in delinquencies in fiscal
year 1997 to $6.4 billion in fiscal year 1999, a drop of nearly 15
percent.
Integrated Financial Management System.--USDA made significant
progress in implementing the Foundation Financial Information System--
FFIS. Along with senior-level staff from the Office of the Secretary
and other top USDA officials, I made significant changes to the
implementation's project management. Under this new management
structure, the Forest Service and the Food Safety and Inspection
Service, which together represent 46 percent of USDA's workforce,
implemented the system on October 1, 1999. The Risk Management Agency
implemented this administrative system on October 1, 1998. This success
led the Secretary to accelerate the system's implementation in the
current fiscal year to include four major agencies--Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service--APHIS, Rural Development--RD, Farm Service
Agency--FSA, Natural Resource Conservation Service--NRCS. These
agencies are expected to have the system in place by October 1, 2000.
National Finance Center.--OCFO's National Finance Center--NFC--in
New Orleans processes the payroll for 40 percent of the Federal
civilian workforce and administers the $90 billion Thrift Savings Plan,
a 401(k) type plan for 2.5 million Federal employees. NFC has added
three new payroll clients: The Peace Corps--900 employees, The Federal
Elections Commission--350 employees, and the county-based employees
from the Farm Service Agency within USDA--1,200 employees in addition
to the 16,300 in fiscal year 1999. NFC has added 21,400 individuals to
the list of employees receiving payroll services in the last two years.
Adding customers to the NFC payroll service helps to reduce the cost
per transaction for all users of the service.
These examples represent progress that will continue only if we
receive the necessary resources to establish the framework in which we
will lead, direct, and coordinate USDA's financial management
priorities to satisfy congressional mandates and provide the Secretary,
the Congress, and program managers with credible financial information
on which they can base decisions.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
Mr. Chairman, OCFO is requesting an increase of $1,505,000 over our
fiscal year 2000 appropriation. The $500,000 increase that we received
in fiscal year 2000 marked the first time in several years that OCFO,
or its predecessor agency, received an increase in its appropriated
budget. We thank you for recognizing financial management's
increasingly important role in ensuring that sound business practices
are in place. We will use the increase in fiscal year 2001 to devote
the necessary staff and resources to continue working on the following
goals:
Lead Corporate Systems Strategy.--The Secretary has directed me to
lead a executive group, including the Chief Information Officer and the
Assistant Secretary for Administration, to develop a corporate strategy
for Department-wide administrative/financial systems, including
accounting/budget execution and formulation functions, procurement,
property, human resources, travel, and the associated
telecommunications and security. These financial management systems
require OCFO to review all current business practices in the affected
agencies to ensure that these systems will produce accurate, timely and
reliable data. Currently, program managers, policy officials, members
of Congress, and other stakeholders do not always have the reliable and
timely information needed to support essential program and financial
management decisions, as well as develop, monitor, and report on
performance plans and their goals and objectives, as required by GPRA.
The added resources for this corporate systems strategy will help OCFO
accomplish these specific objectives: (1) adequately implement
Congressionally mandated debt collection provisions, (2) implement a
financial information architecture that fully complies with Federal
requirements, (3) maintain guidelines for cost distribution processes
to include guidelines for the establishment of fees, (4) ensure
compliance with the Single Audit Act and non-procurement debarment and
suspension/drug-free workplace requirements, and (5) participate as a
key player in Government-wide efforts to continually define and refine
financial information requirements.
Implement Information Infrastructure.--Consistent with the
corporate systems strategy, OCFO will work with four agencies--Rural
Development, FSA, NRCS and APHIS--to implement FFIS, the integrated
administrative accounting system that 46 percent of the Department's
workforce now relies on for its accounting services.
Resolve Credit and Debt Management Issues.--In fiscal year 1999,
OCFO initiated a pilot with the Department's two major credit
agencies--Rural Development and FSA--to jointly address credit reform
issues in partnership with OCFO, the Office of Inspector General, and
the Office of the General Counsel. The pilot was funded through
reimbursable agreements among OCFO, FSA, and Rural Development. The
Federal Government's quest for a clean audit opinion on the Government-
wide Financial Statements is in jeopardy if the Department does not
resolve these credit-related issues.
Fully implement GPRA.--OCFO must (1) conduct oversight and provide
expert guidance within the Department to ensure that the strategic
planning function meets legislative requirements; (2) publish the
Department's Strategic Plans and the annual performance reports; and
(3) ensure that a demonstrated linkage exists between annual
performance plans and the strategic plan and that cost data are aligned
with performance goals and correlate with budget requests. The
resources OCFO needs to manage financial and administrative systems
reforms will be used to link program managers with the essential
information they need to examine performance measures and cost data.
Direct Cost Accounting Reforms.--OCFO leads the USDA Cost
Accounting Task Force efforts and will use the additional resources to
ensure that the systems modernization efforts comply with these
standards and produce the appropriate cost-accounting information that
program officials need.
Produce An Accountability Report.--Without additional resources,
OCFO would have to divert resources from other high profile financial
management initiatives, new systems implementation, and/or audit
resolution to issue an accountability report. An accounting report
would streamline financial and performance reporting and provide
internal and external stakeholders with a single source of
comprehensive information on the Department's performance on program
and financial management issues. With this funding, an accountability
report could be produced by March 31, 2001.
Provide oversight, guidance, and coordination for audit monitoring,
tracking, and resolution.--The added resources would ensure that
Federal funds are utilized for the purposes for which they are
intended, and that instances of program abuse and/or fraud do not go
undetected, but are addressed by Government managers in a timely
fashion. In the last year, OCFO developed an Automated Tracking
System--ATS--to produce better, more efficient management information.
Since the OCFO has been designated as the central point to receive and
track USDA audits these funds are needed to carry out that function.
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my remarks by providing you
with a brief update on our WCF. As you know, the WCF serves as the
Department's primary financing mechanism for centrally managed
financial, administrative, and information technology services. As
such, it supports more than 20 distinct activity centers. Much of what
I have already discussed, with respect to implementing FFIS and our new
corporate systems, will be financed by our WCF and result in some
short-term cost increases.
I cannot tell you, Mr. Chairman, how many USDA officials have come
to me over the last twenty-three months and raised concerns on the WCF
and the perceived lack of controls over its costs. I share these
concerns and last fall initiated a study to evaluate those WCF costs at
the National Finance Center. I recently expanded the study to look at
all services performed at the Center, with the exception of those
performed on behalf of the Thrift Investment Board. When the study is
concluded, my goal will be to determine what it costs the Center to
provide its accounting services.
USDA's leadership wants to control costs, not only for the WCF but
for the individual agencies. The agencies' support for establishing a
corporate strategy is indicative of this awareness. Furthermore, we are
seeing a much greater collaboration between the activity centers that
provide the WCF services and the agencies to ensure we are not
duplicating each others work. For example, Mr. Chairman, last year the
Department's Executive Information Technology Investment Review Board--
EITRB--reviewed the major administrative, financial, and program
systems. This Board is comprised of the Department's senior policy
officials chaired by the Deputy Secretary. In this manner, we are
better able to reduce the duplication of systems development and to
coordinate the Secretary's administrative and financial priorities. In
the long run, I also see this process as a means to maintain and
improve the WCF's integrity.
As you know, the WCF is a revolving fund and totally dependent on
transfers and income it receives from its customers for the services we
provide. We are here today requesting no funding from the Committee,
only to justify them. Much of the increase includes a number of items
related to the modernization investments, re-engineering efforts, and
enhanced accounting services I have spoken of already, along with
associated increases related to the Thrift Savings Plan, or TSP. These
increases are essential to modernize our operations, so we can maintain
and improve upon the high quality of service delivery all of our
customers demand. Only a small portion of the increases are related to
inflation or other cost increases. With respect to TSP, we are
requesting an increase in operating funds to provide for an expansion
of services. The Thrift Investment Board has requested these increases
so they can meet the expected legislative requirements allowing
military personnel to participate in the TSP; make certain other
changes relating to changes in employees' eligibility; and
significantly expand the plans capabilities. These increased costs will
be fully reimbursed by the Board as the customer. I am pleased to
report that we, along with the Board and a private contractor, are in
the final stages of implementing a new system in October 2000 that will
provide two new investment options for TSP participants and allow them
the capability to conduct on-line investing within their own accounts.
These changes will bring TSP up to the standards on-line traders
currently enjoy on the Web.
We have learned that modernizing our financial and administrative
systems is an expensive and continuing process, and we are currently
paying for years of inadequate investments that prevented NFC from
keeping up with current technology standards. That's why we are having
to bear high costs for modernizing NFC and for re-engineering a wide
variety of administrative, information technology, and financial
processes.
As I mentioned, we are evaluating innovative methods to provide
financing for our major initiatives, including the performance-based
contracting. With this in mind, the President's Budget includes new
language to be included in the Department's General Provisions that
would grant authority to the Secretary to transfer certain funds to the
WCF for plant and equipment investments in administrative, financial,
and information technology services. In a rapidly changing
technological environment, we are always going to be faced with the
need to make improvements, redesign systems, re-engineer processes, and
generally manage our operations in a virtual environment. Our customers
will no longer accept less than what they can get in the market place
or from our competitors. Therefore, we must have access to investment
capital that is both sustainable and flexible. We need to be able to
bring needed resources to bear quickly and efficiently. There is no
clearer example of our emerging need than our efforts to re-engineer
our corporate systems, as I noted before. When completed, we will be
able to provide to all of our customers real-time information in an
interactive environment. Again, our customers will accept no less.
Mr. Chairman, we have a shared responsibility to ensure that we can
meet the needs of our agencies as they address the needs of the
American farmer and agricultural community. I am eager to work with you
and the members of this Committee to ensure that those needs are met.
The resource estimates that I am presenting to you is our commitment to
fulfilling our responsibilities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome any
questions the Committee might have.
______
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROGER C. VIADERO, INSPECTOR GENERAL
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am
pleased to have this opportunity to visit with you today to discuss the
activities of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and to provide you
with information on our audits and investigations of some of the major
programs and operations of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Before I begin, I would like to introduce the members of my staff
who are here with me today: Jim Ebbitt, Assistant Inspector General for
Audit; Greg Seybold, Assistant Inspector General for Investigations;
and Del Thornsbury, Director of our Resources Management Division. I
want to thank the Committee for its support during the 5\1/2\ years
since my appointment as Inspector General. We have tried to work
closely with you, and I hope we have been able to address some of your
concerns. We have a diverse staff of auditors, criminal investigators,
and other personnel in our offices throughout the Nation to carry out
the agency's audit and investigative mission.
I am proud to say that in fiscal year 1999, we continued to more
than pay our own way. In the audit arena, we issued 146 audit reports
and obtained management's agreement on 348 recommendations. Our audits
resulted in questioned costs of over $262 million. Also, as a result of
our audit work, management agreed to recover more than $55 million and
put another $114 million to better use. Equally as important,
implementation of our recommendations by USDA managers will result in
more effective operations of USDA programs. In addition, our
investigative staff completed 515 investigations and obtained 502
indictments, 559 convictions, and 2,780 arrests. OIG investigations
also resulted in $68 million in fines, restitutions, other recoveries,
and penalties during the year.
We continued to work closely with USDA agency officials during
fiscal year 1999 to address key issues and expand our cooperation with
other Federal, State, and local law enforcement and audit agencies to
broaden the impact of our work. Working together, our staffs identified
program weaknesses and program violators. Capitalizing on the staffs'
respective expertise, we created solutions for positive action.
In fiscal year 2000, our primary concerns continue to be in the
areas of food safety, public health, and consumer protection. In the
food safety arena, we continue to identify contaminated food,
misbranded products, uninspected meat or other products, or items
smuggled into the United States containing unwanted and unsafe pests.
With the Nation's food supply being highly susceptible to tampering,
diseases, or infestation with unwanted plant pests, OIG's resources,
especially our investigative resources, continue to be drastically
overextended in these highly critical areas.
We are also focusing our audit efforts on the Department's
financial information systems, which process billions of dollars in
payments and an extraordinary amount of sensitive data. And, of course
as conditions change, we adapt quickly to address critical, time-
sensitive situations. For example, when Congress passed supplemental
appropriations to help farmers suffering from natural disasters and low
commodity prices last year, our audit staff immediately teamed up with
Department officials to make sure controls were in place to quickly get
the right payments to farmers. Another area we are addressing is
employee integrity. We are concerned by the occurrences of corruption
within the Department's ranks. For instance, during fiscal year 1999,
we issued 40 investigative reports and obtained 22 convictions of
current or former USDA employees.
Before I continue with our accomplishments during the past year, I
want to take a few minutes to address an issue that has me deeply
troubled. I have been candid with the committee on whatever issues came
before me and reported the facts as I have known them. This is as it
should be. But now, I want to speak of the special agents and auditors
of my own agency. These dedicated individuals have accomplished so very
much, only a small portion of which I have ever had the time to share
with you. Their work literally saved the lives of large numbers of our
citizens, particularly children, and elderly. They have saved our
precious tax dollars, worked with USDA agencies to restore integrity to
our programs, and protected American agriculture. I am immensely proud
of them and hope you are too.
While I have reported to you some of their accomplishments, I have
not told how they have been stretched beyond the breaking point. The
numbers of special agents and auditors, and the resources available to
them, were severely limited when I arrived 5\1/2\ years ago, and while
our responsibilities have increased since my arrival, our staff and
resources have continually diminished. In January 1993, we had 875
employees on board. Now we have only 665 210 less, a 24 percent loss.
Yet, the decrease to 665 people means little until one considers that
the Department's budget, including loan authority, currently is $177
billion; with a personnel staff of approximately 110,000 for fiscal
year 2000. Not included in this dollar amount are the operations and
actions of millions of companies, plants, and individuals regulated by
USDA. As you know, investigating criminal activity by any of them is
the responsibility of OIG agents. Ensuring the integrity of all of
these programs is the responsibility of OIG auditors.
To put it in perspective, when we compare OIG staffing to the
Department's programs and personnel, we find that each auditor must
ensure the integrity of approximately $635 million in program activity.
Each special agent is responsible for investigating all crimes
involving nearly $840 million of USDA funds, and any crimes committed
by the Department's approximately 110,000 employees, such as
embezzlements, thefts, bribes, or extortions. This lone agent is also
responsible for investigating criminal activity committed by immense
numbers of companies, plants, and individuals whose actions are
regulated by the Department through its animal and plant, meat,
poultry, grain, fruit, and vegetable inspection and grading programs.
Then, there are USDA's forests. It's like having one police officer and
one auditor to handle all crime and corruption in New York City.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01ROGER.001
As our funding shortages have grown more severe, we have been
forced to change our standards for determining which criminal
activities we investigate. For years we have declined to investigate
large numbers of prosecutable cases, focusing instead on those with
higher dollar amounts or those that would have a significant impact on
a USDA program. In recent years, as our resources have diminished, we
have had to elevate the standard further, leaving thousands of
prosecutable criminal cases in the files. The types of criminal
activity which we do not have resources to investigate continue to vary
widely, and range from corruption in USDA's grading programs, to
smuggling of agricultural products, to large frauds in the Department's
benefit programs. Proactive investigations have been, by necessity,
severely curtailed.
Of course, our people continue to do their best, continue to lock
up some of those who steal from the taxpayers, poison our citizens, and
endanger American agriculture, but you must know that there are now
huge gaps in that ``thin blue line'' that is OIG.
Our auditors and investigators can continue to recover and save
money for the taxpayers only if they have the tools needed to perform
their duties. The changing world of automation has added to the tools
needed, and these tools come at a heavy price. For example, audits of
computer security require specialized and costly training, hardware,
and software. Without these tools, we stand little chance of staying
abreast with the ``hacker community,'' and the Department's exposure to
system penetrations remains high, with potentially devastating effects.
The highly publicized breakins over the past 2 weeks via the Internet
of such major cyberspace vendors as Yahoo, Amazon.com, and eBay only
highlight the urgency of protecting the Department's data bases and
vulnerable computer systems.
Compounding our dilemma, for several years we have been required to
absorb increases in personnel costs. This has forced us to limit our
replacement hiring and has extensively curtailed the funding we have
available for other necessary items, such as travel and specialized law
enforcement equipment. At the same time, programs and activities
administered by USDA to protect consumers have undergone substantial
increases due to liberalized world trade and travel, and purchases of
commodities for use in the National School Lunch and related programs.
In addition to fewer staff, we received no additional resources for
such mandated activities as auditing the Department's financial
statements, yet this activity consumes about 20 percent of our audit
resources. Under these conditions something has to give, and it is
reduced coverage of the Department's increasing activities and
expenditures. To illustrate this, in fiscal years 1997 through 2000, we
determined that on average a little over 100,000 workdays were needed
in each of those fiscal years to provide audit coverage. Yet with
available audit resources, we could staff only an average of 67,000
workdays, a shortage of 33,000 workdays. In fact, in fiscal year 2000
only 61,400 workdays are available. By way of example, because of these
shortages, we have not been able to provide in-depth audit coverage to
issues such as the Department's efforts to increase collection of debts
owed to it, and the Department's new computer system for tracking the
Rural Housing Loan Program. Overall, more needs to be done with
information technology information since, with the advancing state of
automation, more data involving payment systems, health and safety,
economic matters, and research becomes at risk because of unauthorized
access and possible irreparable damage.
At our current staffing level, we are simply not able to deal with
crisis issues needing immediate audit and investigative attention
without neglecting important work elsewhere. OIG is often required to
pull its special agents from assigned investigations of large frauds in
USDA's benefits and loan programs to investigate criminal activity that
threatens the health and safety of the public. We currently have 34
open investigations on those who intentionally sold meat products that
could have sickened or killed consumers, including school children and
military personnel. While most cases involved those who processed the
meat products, we also investigated those who endangered the public in
other ways. For example, just this month we immediately responded to an
incident where individuals had stolen tractor-trailer loads of meat and
poultry from several locations in Georgia. Our immediate concern was
that the thieves were repackaging and relabeling the stolen product and
not properly maintaining it, making it hazardous to consumers. A
portion of one tractor-trailer load transported to Texas had spoiled
because the refrigeration unit on the trailer was not properly working.
Other stolen meat product was found in Mississippi and in Tennessee,
where it had been sold to prisons.
Another area that significantly affects our resources being
available for criminal investigative operations is our need to provide
protective security for the Secretary of Agriculture. OIG special
agents continue to protect the Secretary during his official duties in
Washington, D.C., and during his extensive official travel domestically
and abroad. In the past 5 years, the number of threats to the Secretary
has increased by 250 percent. In January 2000, the OIG security detail
provided protection to the Secretary while he attended the World Trade
Organization (WTO) meeting in Seattle, Washington. The WTO conference
was ground to a halt by thousands of protestors who blocked entrances
to meeting halls and hotels, virtually shutting down the city for 3
days. In 1999, 20 individuals either wrote threatening letters to the
Secretary or protested the Secretary's agricultural policies and
programs. One individual repeatedly wrote letters to the Secretary
threatening deadly force against him or any other Government employee
who attempted to foreclose on his farm. This individual was arrested by
OIG special agents on January 28, 1999, and has been confined to a
medical facility for psychiatric evaluation. At the time of his arrest,
the individual was carrying a semiautomatic pistol and a shotgun in his
vehicle. An OIG search of his home found five shotguns, three 22-
caliber rifles, ammunition, and a gas mask. The weapons were placed at
various doors and windows throughout the house, and ammunition was
placed beside the weapons. The criminal complaint filed in Federal
court against this individual is still proceeding.
Adequate funding and staffing for our office makes good sense
because we help create a Government that works better and produces
positive results. While I recognize that funding is limited, I believe
OIG cannot continue to provide sufficient service and assistance to
you, the Congress, and to USDA agencies without being provided adequate
resources, and I request that our proposed funding level be approved. I
believe that resources allocated to OIG are very cost-effective in view
of the money we save the taxpayers.
Also, to keep the Committee informed, I have attached a summary to
my testimony of the forfeiture funds we have received to date as a
fully participating member of the Department of Justice's Asset
Forfeiture Fund and how these have been used. These monies have been
very helpful to the agency and have also enabled us to provide support
to the State and local law enforcement agencies we work with in such
joint efforts as Operation Talon. For example, we have been able to
provide these law enforcement agencies nearly $100,000 during the last
year and a half to assist in this particular operation as a result of
our forfeiture authority.
Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to highlight some of our
audit and investigative activities.
AUDIT AND INVESTIGATIONS ACTIVITIES
FOOD SAFETY
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
Last year, OIG began an antismuggling campaign to interdict foreign
agricultural products that are being illegally brought into the
country. Such products can contain pests and diseases that could be
catastrophic to U.S. plant and animal populations. Ongoing criminal
investigations are targeting smuggled fruits, vegetables, plants,
animals, and other commodities that bring high dollars in underground
``black market'' commerce. This initiative requires significant agent
resources dedicated to intelligence collection, undercover operations,
and foreign law enforcement liaison, as well as a need for high-tech
surveillance equipment.
OIG is currently conducting 26 investigations into the smuggling of
agricultural products that are entering the United States through
Canada, Mexico, and U.S. ports in Florida and California. We are
working closely with foreign customs and agricultural inspection
officials, the U.S. Customs Service, the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, and State and local agricultural inspection
personnel to locate the illegal products and identify the manner in
which they are being brought into and moved around the country. These
ongoing investigations have uncovered sophisticated smuggling
conspiracies that are bringing in large quantities of agricultural
products. These individuals fly products into areas of the country with
little agricultural inspection, but then move them into other States
where they pose a danger. They devise paper trails that hide the source
of the products, and conceal the products when moving them. All of the
products could harbor pests and diseases that could devastate the
agricultural sector. Many of our investigations are being conducted on
individuals who are bringing products into California, where outbreaks
of plant pests have been common and costly. There is heightened concern
in California because of the fruit fly quarantine imposed as a result
of these pests being introduced. OIG must do proactive work to ensure
these destructive pests are not being brought into the country on
smuggled plants and commodities to infest our plants and crops. We must
shift staff from current work to address these immediate issues to
prevent loss of crops and dire economic consequences to the local
economies.
Antismuggling operations also include our long-term joint Special
Field Enforcement Program with APHIS, the U.S. Customs Service, and
State and local law enforcement agencies in Florida. This Special Field
Enforcement Program will target organized transportation and
distribution networks responsible for the smuggling of foreign fruit
contaminated with fruit flies and other pests into the United States
via Florida. This program will eventually expand to other States with
pest smuggling problems.
In another OIG criminal investigation that demonstrates our work in
this area, we worked with APHIS to convict two owners and their company
operating a horse export/import business in Virginia and Germany. The
owners pled guilty to smuggling and providing falsified information
concerning the age of horses being exported from Germany. The German
veterinarians unknowingly issued inaccurate health certificates that
allowed the horses to be exported to the United States. The
certificates were presented to APHIS officials so that the horses could
avoid the 50 days of quarantine in the United States paid for by the
owner which is a requirement for all horses over the age of 731 days in
order to prevent the spread of Contagious Equine Metritis, a sexually
transmitted disease. Consequently, at least 10 mature horses were
imported into the United States without being placed in quarantine. One
owner was sentenced to 4 months in prison while the second owner and
corporation were given probation. Collectively, the three were fined
$45,000. Because of OIG criminal enforcement actions, the Government
seized the owners' horse farm in Virginia, valued at $1.2 million,
which the owners forfeited to pay damages in this case.
In another case, a husband and wife, both Canadian citizens, were
indicted in Washington State for smuggling prohibited Asian fruit into
the United States. The Asian fruit is prohibited entry into the United
States because it is known to carry pests and diseases not found here
that could devastate local crop economies. Four hundred pounds of fruit
were discovered hidden in the cargo area of the subjects' station wagon
as well as inside the walls of the cargo area. This was the third time
these individuals had been caught smuggling fruit into the United
States. The husband subsequently pled guilty while the charges against
the wife were dropped. Both the Federal prosecutor and the defense
counsel had initially recommended probation with no jail time. The
judge, noting the potential harmful impact of the fruit, which tested
positive for insect infestation, could have had on domestic crops and
local economies, declared her intent to ``send a message'' to the
subject. She sentenced him to 2 days in jail and 3 years' supervised
release.
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
At last year's budget hearings, I reiterated our continuing
commitment to placing a high priority on food safety and consumer
protection issues. Threats to the health and safety of the public are
the most important matters investigated by OIG. Recent criminal
investigations addressed the processing and sale of adulterated meat
and poultry and tampering with food products consumed by the public.
During the last few months, criminal investigations have
necessitated the immediate deployment of special agents to several
cities in the United States to protect the health and safety of
consumers. These cases, some of which are still ongoing, have involved
real or threatened adulteration of meat with E.coli and Listeria from
unsanitary production methods intentionally neglected by the processor,
sewing needles placed in commercial meat product packages at a
supermarket to injure and possibly kill unsuspecting consumers, and
substances added by the processor for economic gain.
To address these serious threats and illegal acts against the
public's well being, we are pursuing joint activities with other
Federal, State, and local agencies to share intelligence and conduct
undercover operations. Doing so will help us better target criminal
enterprise in general and the threat to the food supply in packing
plants and other facilities in particular.
The increasing threat to the wholesomeness and safety of domestic
and exported food requires not only vigilance but also advanced
preparedness and preemptive undercover operations. Profit-motivated
criminal activity that threatens the food industry can cause economic
disruption while victimizing innocent members of the industry.
Likewise, threats from outside the food industry of criminal
adulteration and biological contamination of food products for
extortion or ideological motives victimize and disrupt the food
production or distribution systems until these threats are resolved
through a law enforcement and health and safety response.
Immediate response to emergency situations impacting USDA programs
and operations and regulated industries requires the specific, unique
law enforcement expertise of USDA OIG. OIG's rapid response and
deployment of considerable staff resources has helped to protect the
health and safety of consumers this past year, and we will continue to
do so in the future. However, the cost to respond rapidly is great and
growing. To do so, we require specialized equipment and protective
clothing and supplies to ensure the health and safety of our personnel
responding to these crises. To date, we have very limited funding for
these critical necessities.
A prime example of our work in this area was one of our high-
profile cases, which was conducted with the technical assistance of the
FSIS Compliance staff. Together, OIG and FSIS identified approximately
30 million pounds of potentially tainted hot dogs and sandwich meat
deemed unfit for human consumption and ordered destroyed by FSIS.
During December 1998, FSIS suspended the operations of the Arkansas
meat processing plant responsible for the unsanitary production process
that resulted in Listeria Monocytogenes bacteria infecting the hot dogs
and sandwich meat. This processing plant produced approximately 600,000
pounds of hot dogs and cold cuts per week and sold these items to large
food stores and the U.S. military. Our criminal investigation
continues. An incident at an Iowa grocery store is another significant
example of the multitude of food safety issues we deal with on a
regular basis. In this case, 18 OIG criminal investigators, in
cooperation with the local police department, worked round-the-clock
for 4 weeks to identify the individual responsible for placing sewing
needles in ground beef packages, fruit, and bakery items to be sold to
the public. Due to the immediate response of OIG special agents and
their subsequent investigative actions, one individual was indicted on
a Federal criminal charge of tampering with food products. Fortunately,
no injuries are known to have resulted from these criminal acts. An
April 2000 trial date has been set.
As a result of another joint criminal investigation by OIG and the
Internal Revenue Service, two owners, the vice president, plant
manager, and four salesmen for a large meat company in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, were indicted for skimming $2.7 million from the company
cash register and concealing this income on their tax returns. The
owners and plant manager were also indicted for misbranding cheaper
cuts of beef and pork and selling this meat as expensive cuts. The two
owners pled guilty to all 52 counts brought against them. The plant
manager pled guilty to selling misbranded meat and filing false income
tax returns. At sentencing, the two owners were ordered to pay a total
of $1.5 million in restitution and fined $724,000. In addition, one
owner was sentenced to serve 60 days' imprisonment, the other was
sentenced to 1 year of home confinement, and each received 5 years'
probation.
ONGOING FOOD SAFETY REVIEW
Another area that is critical to increasing food safety and
ensuring that consumers receive safe and wholesome meat and poultry
products is successful implementation of the Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Point (HACCP) and pathogen reduction programs. We
developed a ``Food Safety Initiative'' to review FSIS' food safety
mission across a broad spectrum of meat and poultry inspection
operations. This initiative, which is now underway, includes a review
of meat and poultry establishments' sanitation and HACCP
implementation, including efforts to test for pathogens and reduce
their presence. Because a key to pathogen reduction is FSIS' laboratory
operations, our review is assessing FSIS' quality control system over
those laboratory operations, product sample integrity, and laboratory
testing operations.
Our review also focuses on the import of meat and poultry products
into the United States from foreign countries. In order for a country
to ship meat or poultry products into the United States, the country
must demonstrate that its inspection system is equivalent to the U.S.
system. When the review of the FSIS equivalency determination is
completed, our efforts will focus on FSIS' responsibility to inspect
the imported product on entry to the United States, and if need be,
conduct visits to selected foreign countries to assess their inspection
systems. Lastly, our initiative is focusing on FSIS' Compliance Program
to determine its effectiveness in preventing and detecting violations
of the meat and poultry inspection laws. This includes activities
related to businesses engaged in transporting, storing, and
distributing products after they leave federally inspected
establishments. We are in the process of finalizing our work in this
area.
FSIS OVERSIGHT OF STATE-OPERATED MEAT AND POULTRY
INSPECTION PROGRAMS NEED FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS
Under the State-Federal Cooperative Inspection Program, individual
States are authorized to inspect meat and poultry products sold solely
within their boundaries, provided that their food safety requirements
are at least equal to those of the Federal Government. FSIS retains an
oversight role in this effort. Twenty-six States have FSIS-approved
inspection programs, covering about 2,700 slaughtering and processing
plants. About 7 percent of all meat and poultry production in the
United States is inspected at these plants.
FSIS took significant steps to correct problems identified in a
previous OIG audit, but additional improvements are still needed. Our
most recent audit, released in May 1999, included reviews in two States
that represented about 24 percent of the State-inspected establishments
nationwide. This audit found that FSIS needs to ensure acceptable
ratings are not given to State programs with identified sanitary
deficiencies or to States that do not take adequate corrective actions
to address serious sanitation problems. FSIS agreed to implement our
recommendations.
EMPLOYEE INTEGRITY
The investigation of criminal acts associated with employee
integrity violations by USDA employees is another high priority for
OIG. During fiscal year 1999, we issued 40 reports of investigation
concerning allegations of criminal conduct by USDA employees. Our
investigations resulted in 22 convictions of current and former
employees and resulted in 68 personnel actions, including removals,
suspensions, resignations, reprimands, and alternative discipline.
Our current investigation in New York City epitomizes the agency's
work in the employee integrity area. Thus far, in this ongoing
investigation, 9 Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) graders have pled
guilty to charges of accepting bribes for downgrading the quality of
fruit and vegetables at the Hunts Point Terminal Market in the Bronx.
In addition, 3 owners or employees of produce wholesalers have pled
guilty to charges of paying bribes to these graders. All 12 owners and
employees of other produce wholesalers have also been indicted and are
waiting trial. All had been arrested by OIG special agents. During the
2\1/2\ year investigation, we uncovered a scheme by which the AMS
graders accepted bribes from produce wholesalers to downgrade lots of
produce. The wholesalers then used the lower grades to negotiate the
price they paid the grower for the produce downward, which resulted in
the growers being cheated out of the true value of their produce.
In another investigation, in West Virginia, nine individuals,
including two employees of the Farm Service Agency's (FSA) Agricultural
Credit Team, were convicted for defrauding the Government of
approximately $2 million in FSA direct and guaranteed farm operating
loan funds. The loans were obligated by FSA based on false information
submitted by the applicants. The two employees of the Agricultural
Credit Team assisted the loan applicants by forging signatures or
manipulating figures on official FSA documents for the purpose of
making the applicants qualify for loans. Eight of the nine individuals
have been sentenced. All seven loan recipients were ordered to make
full restitution. The two FSA employees resigned from Government
service following their convictions.
In an investigation in Louisiana, five individuals pled guilty and
were sentenced in Federal court for their involvement in a kickback
scheme in which an FSA credit manager in Louisiana falsified loan
documents, resulting in $1.8 million in false FSA farm-operating loans.
The credit manager, who resigned, and two other FSA borrowers were
indicted and are fugitives. In addition, a local bank vice president
was placed on pretrial diversion for conspiring with the former credit
manager to provide false information to the Government, which resulted
in the issuance of an FSA guaranteed loan that should not have been
made. The bank vice president obtained the loan for the construction of
an airplane hangar. To date, the sentences have ranged from probation
to 2 years 3 months of incarceration. In addition, the court has, thus
far, ordered a total of over $670,000 in restitution be paid to USDA.
WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
Another extremely important area for OIG is the investigation of
threats of violence against USDA employees. We have responded to
numerous situations involving the use or threatened use of force
against the Department's employees. For example, in Oklahoma, we
investigated a shooting incident involving a farmer, a USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service employee, and a second farmer who was
assisting the USDA employee. The USDA employee was present in an
official capacity when the shooting occurred. The farmers involved in
the situation began arguing about the destruction of several fences,
and one farmer shot and killed the other. The USDA employee was held at
gunpoint for 30 minutes until he was allowed to leave the scene to
obtain help for the farmer who had been shot. The farmer who killed the
individual was indicted by a Federal grand jury for murder. He recently
appeared in District Court for a detention hearing. He was denied bond
and ordered to remain in jail until his trial date which is scheduled
for March 6, 2000.
In another investigation, in North Dakota, a dog kennel owner pled
guilty to a felony count of threatening to assault an APHIS Animal Care
inspector in an attempt to prevent the inspector from performing the
required inspections at the kennel. During the OIG criminal
investigation of this matter, the subject admitted that he had
threatened to kill the inspector, and then proceeded to make a similar
threat if the APHIS inspector attempted to perform his inspection
duties in the future. The kennel owner was sentenced to 12 months'
probation.
INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Computer security
We have also conducted numerous reviews of the vulnerability of
agencies' computer systems to unauthorized access. Using advanced
techniques known to the hacker community our audits disclosed over 600
security vulnerabilities. For example, sensitive data such as passwords
could be identified which would enable hackers to penetrate the
Department's systems. With the continued expansion of Internet use and
public access to departmental systems, security risks will continue to
increase. The potential harm of improper entry to the Department's
computer systems is extraordinary given the degree of sensitive data
processed and the extent of program payments made through these
systems. Alteration of data on quantity and price compiled by the
National Agricultural Statistics Service could drastically impact world
commodity markets. Penetration of Rural Development's $56 billion loan
portfolio could significantly reduce the safeguarding of those assets.
Finally, data that FSIS depends upon to ensure a safe and healthy meat
and poultry supply could be compromised. Although we have been
successful in our audit efforts in this area, much work remains, and
our ability to address it has been limited due to staffing and resource
constraints.
The Department achieves ``year 2000'' compliance
Year 2000 testing was essential to provide reasonable assurance
that new or modified systems processed dates correctly and would not
jeopardize an agency's ability to perform core business operations
after the millennium change. Throughout fiscal year 1999, we continued
to review and report on the Department's Year 2000 compliance or
necessary remedies. Our reviews were essential to provide the public
with assurance that the Department would continue to operate and
provide needed benefits to program participants.
The Department overcame the Y2K threat without significant
interruption. OIG played a major role in this achievement.
FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
Farm Service Agency (FSA)
Monitoring the Implementation of the Crop Loss Disaster
Assistance Program (CLDAP)
In 1998, Congress appropriated $2.4 billion for distribution to
eligible farmers under the 1999 CLDAP. This program provided emergency
assistance to over 270,000 farmers, many of whom suffered multiyear
losses from drought or floods. The value of lost production totaled
around $2 billion. When the bill passed, we began working with FSA and
the Risk Management Agency (RMA) as they began to implement this
massive farm program, to ensure that all eligible farmers received this
Federal farm assistance timely. We provided input on program controls
to FSA and RMA as they drafted program regulations, and, in doing so,
were able to proactively review and provide comments on the agencies'
implementing regulations. This cooperative effort helped to preclude
many of the problems we had noted in prior ad hoc disaster programs. We
had staff at the FSA field offices shortly after CLDAP was implemented,
checking on the effectiveness of FSA's and RMA's outreach program to
ensure all eligible farmers were notified of this program and to
determine if there were any backlogs or other problems in the timely
processing of applications from all eligible farmers. We worked with
the agencies to alert them to potential problems in getting this
massive assistance to all farmers. We were also alert to potential
abuses in the program through ineligible program overpayments submitted
by individuals. As a result of our work with FSA and RMA, they were
able to revise the program procedures and on a timely basis, which
helped to preclude improper CLDAP payments.
On the investigative side, historically, one of our primary
responsibilities has been the investigation of criminal violations of
the various farm support programs administered by USDA. For example, as
a result of a criminal investigation in Georgia, three Mitchell County
farmers have each pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to launder
money. These 3 individuals were believed to be the masterminds in a
disaster fraud scheme that netted them and 12 of their relatives and
friends approximately $1.6 million in unentitled disaster payments. The
defendants filed fraudulent claims to receive FSA disaster payments for
themselves and the others and submitted fictitious seed invoices to
support the fraudulent claims. Each farmer was sentenced to serve 1
year in Federal prison for involvement in this scheme.
In another investigative case in this area, two Idaho warehouse
operators, a husband and wife, were ordered to pay restitution of
$166,000 to the Commodity Credit Corporation and local farmers after
they pled guilty to Federal charges related to the theft of grain that
was being stored at their State-licensed grain warehouse. Producers in
Idaho and Oregon lost more than $1.5 million as a result of the theft.
The wife was sentenced to serve 6 months in Federal prison to be
followed by 4 months of home detention and 3 years of supervised
release. Her husband was placed on probation for 4 years. As part of
their plea agreement, they also agreed not to contest debarment action
by USDA. This investigation was a cooperative effort with the warehouse
examiners from the FSA Kansas City Commodity Office; the Oregon State
Police; the Canyon County, Idaho, Sheriff's Department; the FBI; and
the IRS's Criminal Investigation Division.
Risk Management Agency (RMA)
Reinsured companies were not properly servicing
catastrophic (CAT) risk protection policies
The CAT Program is part of the safety net for farmers. It provides
basic coverage to all producers at a minimal cost and to limited-
resource farmers at no cost. In 1996-1997, a decision was made to
transfer the delivery of CAT policies from FSA to the reinsured
companies. We evaluated the transfer and found a number of servicing
problems, such as farmers not receiving adequate local agent servicing.
Frequently, these producers were not contacted by insurance agents, and
the needs of the limited-resource farmers were not being addressed.
In our recent followup review, we evaluated how effectively the
delivery of this safety net program had been implemented by the
reinsured companies. We found that the number of limited-resource
farmers with CAT policies declined by about 78 percent between 1997 and
1998, during the time the reinsured companies assumed sole delivery of
the program. RMA acknowledged there is a problem in the CAT Program as
currently authorized. However, RMA believes that the significant
decline in participation by limited-resource farmers stems from the
elimination of the legal requirement that farmers purchase crop
insurance in order to receive other Federal farm assistance and from
the farmers' perception as documented in RMA's reviews--that the CAT
Program, as currently devised, does not provide an adequate safety net.
Without improvements in the CAT Program, we believe that producer
participation will likely continue to decline and that the
effectiveness of the program as part of the safety net against
catastrophic losses for farmers, especially small and socially
disadvantaged farmers, will diminish further.
Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS)
Monitoring of FAS' Food Aid Assistance Agreements With the
Russian Government
For the past several years, OIG has evaluated various aspects of
the Department's food aid assistance to the Independent States of the
Former Soviet Union. In response to our recommendations, the Department
took actions to strengthen future programs' controls over
accountability for the commodities and monetary proceeds and oversight
of cooperating sponsors. We believe these actions have improved the
Department's current food aid assistance.
In December 1998, the Governments of the United States and Russia
signed two food aid agreements that would provide over 3 million metric
tons of wheat and various other commodities to the Russian Government.
Shortly thereafter, we began to monitor FAS' efforts to implement
procedures to minimize potential misuse and improper losses of
commodities. The estimated total costs for all the agreements,
including transportation costs, are about $1 billion. The commodities
alone are estimated to have cost $746 million, and their monetary
proceeds in Russia are estimated at over $403 million.
In February 1999, we recommended specific actions to strengthen
FAS' monitoring plan, including the need to increase the size and
effectiveness of its monitoring staff detailed to Russia, and to verify
the financial integrity of any Russian financial institutions involved
with monetary proceeds. In May 1999, we participated on a U.S.
Government Interagency Team to Russia to observe the implementation of
the agreements. We documented our observations in a memorandum to FAS
in August 1999, suggesting that it needed to quickly finalize the
financial guarantees for payment of the commodities and to increase
coordination and communication among all parties. In that memorandum
and in our testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture, in October 1999, we stated that even though
we could not provide complete assurance that the controls are fully in
place and working, we believed that FAS had made significant efforts to
establish controls and strengthen monitoring efforts.
FOOD, NUTRITION, AND CONSUMER SERVICES
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)
Operation Talon
Previously, I informed you we had initiated a new law enforcement
initiative, code named ``Operation Talon.'' This initiative provides
for the exchange of information between law enforcement and State
social services agencies. Specifically, law enforcement fugitive
records are matched with social service agencies' food stamp recipient
records, and the information is used by OIG and State and local law
enforcement officers to locate and apprehend dangerous and violent
fugitive felons who may also be illegally receiving food stamp
benefits.
Overall, Operation Talon has been the most successful investigative
initiative we have yet undertaken. To date, this initiative has
resulted in the arrest of approximately 5,600 fugitive felons. This has
included 33 wanted for murder or attempted murder; 24 for child
molestation; 14 for rape or attempted rape; 9 for kidnapping; and 1,695
for assault, robbery, and drug offenses. Also, a number of States are
removing arrested fugitives from their food stamp rolls, which will
result in savings to the Food Stamp Program and allow food stamp
benefits to continue to go to the needy who are the intended recipients
and entitled to this benefit.
Operation Talon is an ongoing initiative, and we are planning
future arrest operations in many parts of the country. During the next
phase of Operation Talon, we will initiate data matches between State
social service agencies' records and Federal fugitive information
provided by the U.S. Marshals Service. Following these matches, our
agents and the U.S. Marshals Service will conduct fugitive apprehension
operations. These Federal arrest operations will take place concurrent
with OIG, State, and local law enforcement agency operations targeting
non-Federal fugitive felons.
Food Stamp Program (FSP)--Electronic Benefits Transfer
(EBT)
In fiscal year 1999, just over $19 billion in FSP benefits was
issued with about 70 percent issued via EBT. This now involves 34
statewide systems and the District of Columbia. It is critical that we
provide audit coverage to ensure not only that the systems operate as
designed, but also that only eligible persons receive benefits in the
proper amounts. We will need to provide periodic assurances that EBT is
working and that interState operability is functioning as it is
expanded.
In fiscal year 1999, we completed EBT system work in seven States.
The EBT systems were successfully implemented in all seven States;
however, controls need to be strengthened in some areas. Six States
need to improve controls over access to their EBT systems. Two States
need to establish procedures to reconcile program authorizations to
those received by the EBT processor and the system operated by the
Federal Reserve. In another State, controls were not in place to
correct an erroneous benefit file that had been transmitted to the
contractor. This resulted in a system error, causing an estimated
$730,000 in erroneous FSP benefits to be issued to about 10,000
individuals. Even with these problems, however, we believe EBT has been
successful it gets stamps off the street, thereby reducing the
opportunities for food stamp trafficking. Our reviews of EBT systems
will continue as States endeavor to implement EBT to meet the deadline
of October 2002 mandated by the Welfare Reform Act.
We also continue to devote significant investigative resources to
combating fraud in FSP. Ever since this important program began
distributing food stamps to needy Americans, unscrupulous people have
been willing to devise methods to unlawfully benefit from it. As the
result of three OIG criminal investigations in Cleveland, Ohio, that
initially seemed unrelated, a local grocer pled guilty to laundering
$8.6 million in connection with food stamp trafficking. The
investigation showed that, from June 1993 through March 1998, the
grocer organized the illegal redemption of food stamps for himself and
other Cleveland area grocers. The grocer was sentenced in Federal court
to 12 years' imprisonment. This individual also had two prior
convictions for food stamp trafficking as a result of OIG
investigations conducted in 1989 and 1994. The other two store owners
involved in the conspiracy, who cooperated with the prosecution, were
sentenced to 2\1/2\ years and 18 months, respectively. All involved
grocers were permanently disqualified from FSP. This investigation was
conducted by the Cleveland Food Stamp Task Force, which is composed of
OIG, the Secret Service, the FBI, the IRS Criminal Investigation
Division, the U.S. Customs Service, the Cleveland Police Department,
and the Ohio Department of Public Safety.
In another 2-year criminal investigation by OIG, the Texas
Department of Human Services' OIG, the IRS, and the Secret Service, six
family members in Houston, Texas, were convicted for food stamp fraud,
money laundering, and conspiracy, and criminal forfeiture actions were
imposed. The subjects illegally accepted and redeemed in excess of $2
million in food stamp benefits via the EBT system. The six subjects
received sentences that ranged from 27 months' imprisonment to 97
months' imprisonment, and $2 million was ordered in restitution.
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)
Last year I testified that we would continue with Operation
``Kiddie Care'' our Presidential Initiative reviewing CACFP as long as
we find evidence of abuses in the program. In fiscal year 2000,
estimated outlays for this program are $1.8 billion; a program we judge
to be at risk because its current control structure is flawed and
places the primary controls in the hands of sponsors. Unless the
program delivery system is overhauled, the kinds of abuses we have
identified will continue, with the result being food literally being
taken out of the mouths of hungry children to the benefit of greedy
sponsoring organizations. We have continued our ``sweeps'' to identify,
remove, and prosecute unscrupulous program sponsors and recover
ineligible payments.
Since last year, the cases of serious deficiencies and criminal
activities have continued to mount. Currently, we have 38 open CACFP
investigations, which are part of our ongoing efforts to detect fraud
committed by CACFP sponsors nationwide.
Our efforts have been very successful. For example, in Michigan, a
former City of Detroit School Board member who owned and operated 16
day care centers, as well as an assistant, were indicted by a Federal
grand jury for defrauding USDA of an estimated $16 million. Our
investigation showed that these individuals inflated the number of
meals fed to children and falsified supporting documentation. A food
vendor admitted supplying false invoices to inflate the food costs of
the day care centers to substantiate the false meals reported to USDA.
A Federal District Court jury found the owner of the day care centers
guilty of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and Government program fraud,
obtaining funds of the Department of Agriculture by fraud, mail fraud,
embezzlement of public funds, conspiracy to launder money, and money
laundering. This individual was sentenced to 108 months in prison,
followed by 3 years' supervised release, and was ordered to pay over
$13 million in restitution and a $10 million fine. Her assistant
recently pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and Government
program fraud. Sentencing is pending.
Our audit reviews of CACFP, as of December 1999, have identified 40
sponsors whose program deficiencies are so serious that they should be
terminated from program participation unless the shortcomings are
promptly addressed. These sponsors have been receiving about $78.6
million in CACFP funds annually. Twenty-two sponsors terminated from
the program were receiving $45.4 million annually. Fifty-seven
individuals have been charged with crimes, and 38 have pled guilty or
been convicted thus far.
The focus of our Operation is now on improving program delivery and
oversight. After an interim report on Operation ``Kiddie Care'' in
April 1998, we issued our audit report in August 1999, urging needed
regulatory and legislative changes to CACFP.
We believe our findings demonstrate a need for dramatic changes in
CACFP. We made 23 recommendations to eliminate the structural program
flaws, strengthen internal controls, and clarify CACFP requirements. We
also recommended that FNS study alternative methods of delivering a
meal program to children and adults in day care, specifically one that
addresses the problems with private, nonprofit sponsoring
organizations. FNS is in the process of preparing new regulations and
requesting comments from stakeholders on basic structural changes in
how payments are made to sponsors. Until changes are implemented,
program abuses assuredly will continue. Returning integrity to this
important feeding program and protecting the resources of the American
taxpayer are high priorities for OIG, as well as FNS.
Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC)
One of the primary purposes of WIC is to provide funds to families
with small children to allow them to purchase certain nutritious food
items. In an effort to curb fraud in WIC, we are continuing our
investigative activities. For example, in a joint criminal
investigation by OIG and the Georgia Department of Human Resources',
Office of Fraud and Abuse, a Georgia Department of Health clerk
responsible for administering WIC pled guilty to creating $47,945 in
fraudulent WIC vouchers and converting them for her own use. The
investigation disclosed that the clerk created 77 fictitious infants,
including 21 sets of twins, in a scheme to defraud WIC from October
1994 to August 1996. The clerk issued 1,073 fraudulent WIC vouchers and
redeemed them for infant formula, which she resold to small retail
grocery stores in the Atlanta area. While the investigation was in
progress, the clerk resigned from her position. She pled guilty and was
sentenced to 1 year of incarceration, followed by 3 years of supervised
release, and ordered to pay $47,945 in restitution.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Rural Housing Service (RHS)
Multifamily Housing Enforcement Program
RHS programs are intended to help finance new or improved housing
for more than 70,000 moderate or low-income families. When program
funds are diverted, tenants (including many elderly and disabled
people) do not receive decent, safe, and sanitary housing as intended
by the program. OIG and RHS recently combined forces to develop a team
approach for review of borrowers and management agents at high risk of
defrauding or abusing the multifamily rural housing program. Our
report, issued in March 1999, described a high-risk profile which we
used to identify over $4.2 million in misused funds, as well as health
and safety hazards posing an immediate danger to the tenants.
Historically, OIG has responded vigorously when indications of
fraud and abuse are identified. However, as our resources are
stretched, almost to the breaking point, we are frequently unable to
respond to requests for audit assistance. As a result, some who abuse
the RRH program can continue to do so with impunity at least until
additional staffing and resources become available.
We have worked closely with RHS to develop proposed legislation to
improve the integrity of the multifamily housing program. The draft
bill would authorize a broad range of criminal and civil authorities
which could be brought to bear against persons or entities who misuse
RHS housing programs. Specifically, the proposed legislation would (1)
establish civil sanctions for equity skimming, (2) establish civil
monetary penalties for persons or entities who violate agreements and
contracts, (3) authorize the Secretary to withhold the renewal or
extension of loan or assistance agreements and request judicial
intervention to enforce compliance with an administrative decision, (4)
provide sanctions for money laundering and provide civil fines for
obstruction of Federal audits and, (5) authorize the Secretary to
impose civil penalties when project accounting records are found to be
in unsuitable condition for audit. These provisions will strengthen our
ability to audit and prosecute cases of program fraud and abuse,
significantly improve program controls, and facilitate the effective
administration of rural housing programs.
Rural Utilities Service (RUS)
Telephone Loan Program Policies and Procedures
RUS continues to make and service loans to financially strong
borrowers who likely could obtain financing from other sources. Of $4.8
billion in loans to 815 direct and guaranteed RUS telephone borrowers,
we determined that 434, or 53 percent of the borrowers, with loans
totaling $1.87 billion had sufficient financial strength to repay their
loans or could obtain or be graduated to nongovernmental lending
sources. This totaled 39 percent of the loans for the 17-year period,
1981 through 1997, which we reviewed.
By law, RUS is required to assist borrowers to achieve financial
strength to enable them to satisfy their credit needs without its
assistance. However, RUS' loan eligibility criteria are based on
meeting minimum financial standards, with no consideration given to
whether the borrower has a financial need. Also, RUS' annual budget is
based on anticipated loan requests from all applicants regardless of
financial condition. As a result, RUS makes loans to financially
healthy telephone companies. Also, we reported that RUS has not
established procedures and requirements for financially strong
borrowers to seek credit from other sources, nor has it established a
loan graduation program for borrowers who no longer need Government
assistance.
We recommended that RUS work with the Congress to clarify its
policy for the telephone loan program regarding loan graduation and
require financially strong borrowers to obtain credit from
nongovernmental sources. If Congress determines that RUS should require
financially strong borrowers to use other sources of credit, we
recommend that RUS establish a graduation program for assisting the 53
percent of its telephone borrowers who are financially strong. We point
out, though, that RUS officials disagree that a graduation program is
needed. Instead, RUS believes that it is carrying out its mission. We
raise the question as to whether or not it makes sense to loan
Government funds, limited in the first place, to borrowers who have the
wherewithal to obtain credit in the private sector.
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
Forest Service (FS)
While FS' operations are not funded through this Committee, they
are a major program operation within USDA. As a result, OIG invests a
significant amount of audit and investigative resources in the agency's
activities.
We recently evaluated FS' administrative controls over the
preparation of environmental documents and the implementation of
environmental safeguards for timber sale activities. Our review
disclosed that improvements were needed in all aspects of this program.
We found that the lack of adequate administrative controls hurt not
only the environment, but also the Timber Sale Program and timber
purchasers. During our evaluation, FS took immediate action on several
key recommendations that will improve the overall effectiveness of the
Timber Sale Program. These actions included halting several timber
sales in the Southern Region after we advised the region that surveys
for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species had not been
performed. Also, another region's FS personnel revised the boundaries
of a timber harvest after we identified a heritage resource site that
was not adequately protected.
We have also looked at a number of FS land exchanges. For example,
in the Thunderbird Lodge land exchange, in Lake Tahoe, Nevada, FS
obtained a $50 million, 140-acre lakefront estate. During our review,
we identified a number of issues that could have resulted in
significant liabilities to FS if not resolved before completion of the
transaction. For instance, we found that provisions for maintaining the
historically significant structures were not adequate. As a result, FS
could have been liable for up to $3 million in maintenance costs for
the estate over the duration of the agreement. Prompted by our
discussion with FS officials, the terms and conditions of the
transaction were changed to ensure FS would not be liable for future
maintenance of the structure. While we were able to obtain prompt
action in this instance, we are aware of other land exchanges where
similar questions could be raised that go unaudited due to the lack of
resources.
ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Financial Statement Audits
As required by law, we performed audits of the Department's fiscal
year 1998 financial statements. These audits provide Congress and the
public with information and insight regarding management's stewardship
over Federal assets and its overall fiscal performance. We issued
unqualified, or ``clean,'' opinions on the financial statements of the
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and FNS. The Rural Development
mission area, including the Rural Telephone Bank, received a qualified
opinion because we were unable to assess the reasonableness of its
credit program receivables or its estimated losses on loan guarantees.
We issued a disclaimer of opinion on FS and the USDA consolidated
statements. A disclaimer of opinion means that the books and records of
the entity were so poorly maintained we could not complete the required
audit analyses. FS received a disclaimer due to significant financial
system weaknesses, which include the lack of an integrated general
ledger and supporting subsidiary records. Furthermore, FS could not
account for its vast property, plant, and equipment holdings. The USDA
consolidated statements received a disclaimer of opinion because the
Department could not provide assurance that its financial systems
provide information that is relevant, timely, consistently reported,
and in conformance with accounting principles. In addition to financial
system problems, numerous internal control weaknesses materially
degrade the Department's ability to report accurate and reliable
financial information.
Implementation of the Foundation Financial Information System (FFIS)
Needs Improvement
Many of the Department's financial accounting problems stem from
extraordinary weaknesses associated with the Central Accounting System
(CAS) used by the National Finance Center (NFC). These weaknesses have
significantly affected the ability of Department officials to prepare
accurate financial statements and cost data necessary to manage
departmental programs. To correct these problems, the Department is
implementing FFIS to replace CAS at NFC. Our monitoring and review of
these implementation efforts continue to find substantial weaknesses,
however, and unless corrective actions are taken, the full and
effective implementation of FFIS will not be achieved.
USDA Investments at Risk Due to Corporation's Mismanagement
The Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization
Corporation (AARCC) was established to find innovative uses for
agricultural products. We performed an audit to assess the agency's
management of its mission program. The audit concluded that AARCC had
only minimal assurance that taxpayers' monies had been properly
expended and that its $27 million investment portfolio had been
adequately protected from loss.
The audit found that the process used by AARCC to select firms for
investment was not adequate because the applicants had not displayed
any reasonable basis for prospective success. AARCC's monitoring of the
investees' operations to ensure compliance with its agreements was
virtually nonexistent. Of particular concern were various
transgressions by companies that AARCC took no action to preclude or
rectify. In one case, AARCC invested $450,000 in a firm for the
development, manufacture, and marketing of headbands made from starch
absorbents. In return, AARCC was to receive royalties on the sales of
the product and an equity interest in the firm. After receiving the
funding and procuring the specialized equipment to manufacture the
headbands, the firm realized that no market existed for the product.
However, the firm discovered there was substantial demand about $80,000
a month for incontinence pads which could be made with the same
equipment. The firm asserted AARCC had no claim to the revenues from
the manufacture of the pads because the product had changed. The
agreement, however, prohibited the use of the equipment for alternative
production. AARCC subsequently became aware of the impropriety and
unsuccessfully attempted to renegotiate the terms. Congress did not
provide any funding for AARCC for fiscal year 2000. However, AARCC's
Board of Directors needs to decide how it will manage and protect its
existing $27 million portfolio to ensure that the Government's
interests are protected.
CONCLUSION
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. As you can see, the work
of OIG is far-reaching and expansive. I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you today and share with you some of the work we do. I
hope my comments have been helpful to you and the Committee. I will be
pleased to respond to any questions you may have at this time.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PARTICIPATING AGENCY FORFEITURE FUNDING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Categories Description -------------------- Total
1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total expenditures:
Third Party Interests..................... Payment of valid liens and $5,877 ........ $5,877
secured mortgages.
ADP Equipment............................. Automated data processing 4,734 $13,278 18,012
equipment.
Case Related Expenses..................... Travel and subsistence expenses, 40,635 92,078 132,714
translation services, storage.
Special Contract Services................. Contract personnel (Data 646 131,555 132,200
Analyst, Law Clerk).
Training and Printing..................... Training, travel, and printing 37,726 224,111 261,838
expenses.
Contracts to Identify As- sets........... Information services for tracing ........ 5,393 5,393
forfeitable as- sets.
Joint Law Enforcement Task Forces......... Overtime and other operational 7,367 239,692 247,059
costs for state and local
agencies (including $75,000 for
Operation Talon).
Awards for Information.................... Payment for specific information ........ 19,802 19,802
on criminal activity.
Purchase of Evidence...................... Purchase of evidence for money ........ 848 848
laundering and other forfeiture
related violations.
Equipping of Conveyances.................. Equipping agency owned or leased 185,380 3,586 188,966
vehicles.
-------------------------------
Totals................................................................... 282,365 730,344 1,012,709
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000: OIG has received an allocation of $940,000 for fiscal year 2000 current year use.
______
RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAYTON J. WATKINS, ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
appear before you today to present the Administration's fiscal year
2001 Budget for the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS).
Mr. Chairman, the key to improving the economic conditions of rural
areas, and particularly those areas experiencing decades of poverty and
stagnant economies, is the creation of more business opportunities and
more jobs, and specifically jobs that pay wages that are sufficient to
lift families out of poverty. Presently, service sector jobs are the
leading employer in many rural areas, and as important as those jobs
are to the local economy, they still do not pay a wage sufficient to
support a family of four.
The creation of jobs is best accomplished by the private sector,
but as we all know, there are a number of rural areas in which private
sector capital is not readily available. The programs of the Rural
Business-Cooperative Service help close the gap in opportunity for
these areas, bringing them closer to sharing in the benefits of the
Nation's economic growth. The $1.5 billion requested for the programs
in this budget will assist in creating or saving about 105,000 jobs and
provide financial assistance to more than 4,200 businesses.
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY GUARANTEED AND DIRECT LOAN PROGRAMS
For the Business and Industry Program (B&I), the fiscal year 2001
budget includes $13 million in budget authority to support $1.25
billion in Guaranteed Loans and $50 million in Direct Loans. Since the
streamlined Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program regulations
were published in December 1996, demand for the program has increased
300 percent. With this level of funding, we estimate that these two
programs will create or save about 40,000 jobs. But equally as
important, under the guaranteed loan program, we are able to help the
local lender provide financing and thus help build community stability.
Of the $1.25 billion requested for the guaranteed program we are
again proposing to make available $250 million for financing for
cooperative businesses with a particular emphasis on new value-added
cooperatives as a policy objective. Priority will be given to projects
involving farmer owned value-added cooperatives. In addition, this
financing is available for guarantees of individual farmer's purchase
of cooperatives stock in a start-up cooperative established for value-
added processing of an agricultural commodity raised by the individual
farmer stockholders. We expect this program to be a key tool in capital
investment in rural areas and as a means of helping farmers keep more
of the income generated by their product. In fiscal year 1999, $44.4
million of B&I Guaranteed funding was obligated to support cooperative
business. In fiscal year 2000, $32 million of B&I Guaranteed funding
has been obligated to date. In fiscal year 2001 priority will continue
to be given to cooperatives businesses.
INTERMEDIARY RELENDING PROGRAM
The fiscal year 2001 budget also includes $32.8 million in budget
authority to support $64.5 million in loans under the Intermediary
Relending Program (IRP). The initial investment of this level of
funding will create or save an estimated 14,500 jobs, but because these
funds are re-loaned 3 or 4 times by the intermediary, we estimate that
over 49,300 jobs will result eventually. In an effort to be of more
assistance through this program, we revised the regulation in 1998 to
expand the $2 million cap on loans to intermediaries to a $15 million
cap to any one intermediary in annual increments of $1 million. The
Presidents budget also provides that $4 million of the request for IRP
shall be for Native Americans. The Administration is directing Federal
lending entities to work more closely with Tribal governments and
lenders to resolve some of the concerns private lenders have with trust
lands and sovereignty issues.
The IRP regulation is now more user-friendly, and authorizes the
Rural Development State Offices to process applications at the State
level, rather than submitting applications to the National Office for
processing. This change has speeded up the application process and
allows State Offices to provide immediate feedback to borrowers
concerning their applications. Pursuant to Rural Development's mission
of prioritizing the most under served communities, we are prioritizing
the neediest communities, such as those in low-income or under served
areas, those with declining populations, or communities faced with
economic restructuring or economic disasters. In addition, the eligible
purposes for loans to businesses have been expanded. The demand for
this program continues to be strong. To illustrate the benefits the IRP
provides to rural America, the Southern Kentucky Economic Development
Corporation (SKEDC) has loaned in excess of $1.5 million to more than
ten ultimate recipients, leveraging approximately $11 million in new
private investments. As a direct result of the IRP and leveraged funds,
more than 200 new jobs have been created.
One ultimate recipient organization that directly benefited from
the IRP funds was in Laurel, Kentucky. The Grocery Company needed to
expand its transportation fleet and construct a modern new warehouse
including the installation of a state-of-the-art computer tracking
system for inventory control and uniform pricing. The warehouse was
expanded by 37,000 square feet for a total of 237,000 square feet under
one roof. Thirty new jobs were created, bringing the company's total
employment to 290 persons. The total project value was $1,361,000,
which included a $150,000 ultimate recipient loan from the SKEDC. The
Grocery Company now serves 600 retail stores in Indiana, Ohio, West
Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky.
RURAL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE GRANTS
For the Rural Business Enterprise Grants Program, the fiscal year
2001 budget includes almost $40.7 million. We anticipate that this
level of funding will create or save over 12,700 jobs. The purpose of
this program is to assist small and emerging businesses and the small
amount of funds we typically invest in a project, on a dollar-for-
dollar basis generates another $2.40 in private capital.
RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS AND GRANTS
The fiscal year 2001 budget requests $15 million in Economic
Development Loans and $4 million in grants. These programs represent a
unique partnership since they directly involve the Rural Electric and
Telecommunication borrowers in community and economic development
projects. These borrowers are the intermediaries through which the
funds are invested locally. Each dollar invested through these programs
attracts an additional $3 in other capital. The loan program provides a
zero interest loan to the cooperative, which guarantees repayment of
the loan to the government. Loans are used primarily for economic
development activities, while the grant funds can be used for
establishing revolving loan funds and for community development
projects. To support the Vice President's Reinvention of Government
Plain Language Initiative, we have recently published plain language
regulations as a proposed rule. When implemented, these plain language
regulations will provide a more efficient and customer friendly
procedure for accessibility to the programs.
RURAL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY GRANTS
The fiscal year 2001 budget includes $8 million for Rural Business
Opportunity Grants to provide much needed technical assistance and
capacity building in rural areas. We have determined, through the
Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community Rural process, that the most
significant non-capital need in most rural areas is the capacity to
develop the economic and community development strategies necessary to
attract private investment capital and Federal and state assistance.
The vast majority of rural communities are served by part-time
officials who do not have the time or the necessary training to compete
with large communities for funding that may be available to them. The
funds requested under this program will aid in providing that
invaluable assistance that allows communities to take the first step in
assisting themselves.
RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
For the Rural Cooperative Development Grants (RCDG), the fiscal
year 2001 budget requests $6 million. This program complements our
internal National and State Office technical assistance efforts by
encouraging the establishment of centers for cooperative development.
Demand for technical assistance through RCDG has exceeded available
funding by approximately five or six times over the past few years. Ten
centers were funded in fiscal year 1999 and 13 in fiscal year 1998.
They provide a focus of development expertise that devotes extensive
time to conducting feasibility analysis and outreach for newly
developing cooperatives. RBS has demonstrated how we are able to
harness a variety of resources to enhance cooperative development
efforts. In 1999, the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) asked for
technical assistance to explore cooperative solutions to the
concentration issues facing the pork industry and its producers. RBS
aggressively worked with a NPPC Task Force to explore formation of a
nationwide cooperative business structure of independent pork
producers. The result of these efforts has been the incorporation of
the Pork America Cooperative in January 2000. RBS will continue its
technical assistance in cooperative development as the newly formed
organization develops its business plan, membership base and
operations.
APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER FOR RURAL AREAS
The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA) program
provides technical information to producers and their advisors on best
sustainable production practices. A funding increase to $2 million is
requested to enhance delivery of this effective program. Direct
responses to over 15,000 inquires were made in 1999, in addition to
information provided through the ATTRA web site. Requests from
agricultural producers, extension personnel, and others focus primarily
on sustainable practices that reduce dependence on chemicals and is
more environmentally friendly.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AGREEMENTS
The fiscal year 2001 budget requests $2 million in funding for
cooperative research agreements. These agreements help assure our
nation's farmers and their cooperatives have a sound basis on which to
make critical economic decisions. In a time of considerable stress and
structural change in U.S. Agriculture, it is essential that group
action marketing endeavors be on the most solid ground possible.
BIO-BASED PRODUCTS
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget requests $1.5 million to
support cooperatives involved with processing and marketing bio-based
products. Of that amount, $1 million is for a pilot program for Rural
Utilities Service electric borrowers to demonstrate the efficiency of
bio-mass fuel generation.
NATIONAL SHEEP INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT CENTER
The fiscal year 2001 budget requests $5 million in funding for the
National Sheep Industry Improvement Center. The Center, while having
significant delays in implementing their program, has now made a major
grant to an intermediary revolving fund that is loaning money to the
sheep and goat industry. In addition, $5 million of the National Sheep
Industry Improvement Center's permanent funding has been used to assist
the industry in market promotion in light of the unfair trade practices
found in the International Trade Commission case against Australia and
New Zealand.
COOPERATIVE CAPITALIZATION FUND
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget requests $130 million to
cooperative capitalization fund that would be used to provide equity
capital for new livestock and other cooperatives and help finance
construction of cooperative-owned processing facilities.
RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES GRANTS
For the Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities, the
President's fiscal year 2001 budget requests $15 million to provide
grants to designated rural areas including 5 Rural Empowerment Zones
and 20 Rural Enterprise Communities. The purpose of this program is to
target Federal, State, and local resources to low-income rural areas to
demonstrate that innovative, comprehensive, and strategic alliances
between private, public and nonprofit entities can work in concert to
improve the economic strength of rural communities.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Before closing, I would like to urge the Committee to provide the
requested funding for Rural Development Salaries and Expenses. We
cannot manage the $4.3 billion portfolio without qualified staff. We
cannot maintain qualified staff without adequate funding. In addition,
our computer systems cannot keep up with the growing portfolio.
CONCLUSION
Over the past several years, RBS has been provided with increased
program resources to use in meeting rural business and economic
development needs. We have streamlined our programs, improved consumer
focus, and developed strategic relationships to benefit all of rural
America. Each year we have used all of our resources in this new
business environment, but still, the need exists for additional
resources to accommodate the needs of those communities not yet
experiencing the positive impact of America's economic prosperity. Mr.
Chairman, this concludes my formal statement on the fiscal year 2001
Budget. I would be happy to respond to any questions the Subcommittee
may have regarding the Rural Business-Cooperative Service programs of
the Rural Development Mission Area.
______
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JILL LONG THOMPSON, UNDER SECRETARY FOR RURAL
DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to present
to you the President's fiscal year 2001 Budget Request for the Rural
Development Mission Area of USDA. With your permission I will summarize
my statement and request that the full text of the statement be
presented in the hearing record.
Before discussing the budget request for 2001, I am pleased to
share with you some of the results of the funding the Committee
provided Rural Development for fiscal year 1999. I am very proud of the
results, and I think the Committee will be as well. With the $1.7
billion appropriated for Rural Development programs in fiscal year
1999, investments totaling $9.9 billion were made in rural people,
communities and businesses. A conservative estimate of the economic
impact of that investment is $18 billion. The following is a sample of
the successes.
--The investment in rural businesses, housing and community
infrastructure created or saved about 200,000 jobs.
--Almost 66,000 rural families that could not otherwise qualify for
mortgage credit were able to buy or improve their homes; over
5,000 affordable rental units were added to the rural housing
stock; and 42,357 low-income households were able to obtain
decent housing at an affordable rent.
--Almost 500 community facilities projects, such as health clinics,
child care facilities, schools, libraries, police stations and
fire stations serving over 8 million residents were built.
--Almost 2 million rural residents were provided new or improved
public water supply or waste disposal systems; 2.8 million
rural residents received improved electrical service; 287 rural
schools and 131 rural health care providers benefitted from the
distance learning/telemedicine facilities.
--Over 200 marketing networks and cooperative partnerships were
established or increasing their business outlets.
While the aggregate statistics are impressive, they do not tell the
human side of the story which is substantial, but is difficult to
report statistically. Actual successes are described below.
--The local job market in a small, rural community in Kentucky was
improved with the reopening of a local textile plant which had
been closed by a large national company. With assistance from
Rural Development, the plant was refurbished with modern
equipment and now employs 125 residents.
--A single mother in rural Maine, suffering from memory impairment
due to an automobile accident, now has a home for herself and
her 6-year-old daughter. After the accident they had been
required to move several times and for a while lived in a
motel.
--The 1,200 residents of a small town in Georgia will, for the first
time, have local health care and child care facilities. The
clinic will provide health care 7 days a week and the child
care facility will be open 24 hours a day to accommodate
children whose parents work at night.
--A county-wide volunteer fire department in Texas replaced their 30-
year-old radio equipment with new communications technology
which will allow direct communications with the county police
and emergency medical services.
--Approximately 9,100 residents in the very isolated Bering Straits
region of Alaska will have improved health care. Diagnosis-
quality images will be transmitted to medical specialists in
Anchorage from 15 villages, a clinic in tribal headquarters and
two health care providers in Nome. The residents are scattered
over 25,000 square miles with some having no road access.
Mr. Chairman, as you and the Committee review the fiscal year 2001
Budget request for Rural Development, please keep in mind that the
reason each of these programs was authorized, in some cases decades
ago, was concern that rural America was being left behind economically.
Although there has been significant progress during the past three
decades in addressing these needs, the poverty rate in many rural
communities is still unacceptable. After showing some improvement in
the 1970's, many rural areas are once again significantly lagging
behind the improvement in the national economy. And more recently there
has been increased concern about the future economic opportunities of
rural communities due to the concentration of agricultural production
and processing.
We all know that, as farming operations increase in size and
processing operations vertically integrate, ties to the rural community
are weakened. Larger farms can purchase their inputs, including
capital, from larger and more distant sources. Larger farms also find
it easier to negotiate directly with processors rather than local
buyers. This often results in less income being retained in local
communities and less capital available for other business needs and for
diversifying the local economy to counter the effects of concentration.
This situation is exacerbated by consolidation in the banking,
retailing, and in health care. Consequently, there are fewer rural
economic hubs than once existed. And evidence shows that the greater
the distance from an economic hub, the lower the economic growth rate.
Mr. Chairman, although there have been significant successes in
rural areas generated by the programs we administer, the Federal
government is not, nor should it be, a substitute for the wealth
generating capacity of the private sector. That is why we, in Rural
Development, continue to stress that cooperatives are a good solution
to some of the development needs in rural areas. Agricultural producers
have the opportunity to maximize their position in negotiating prices
for their commodities through marketing cooperatives. They can also
increase their profits by utilizing cooperatives to process and add
value to their commodities. An example is a new cooperative soybean
processing plant whose farmer-owners will realize an additional forty
cents per bushel. Most of the additional earnings remain in the local
community. We would like to see more cooperative business operations
such as this one and others that we have financed in recent years.
Through market forces, member-owned cooperatives help grow local
economies and rural communities.
We believe it is our responsibility to assist the private sector
make these opportunities a reality. This has been the focus and the
message of the President's `` New Markets'' initiative to encourage the
private sector to view poverty stricken rural and urban areas as
potential market opportunities. Last fall I had the pleasure of
accompanying the President to Hermitage, Arkansas, to demonstrate the
success of a very small cooperative venture that includes 17 member
producers. Three years ago before the cooperative was formed, these
producers sold 3,400, 20 pounds cases of tomatoes worth $60,000, and
fifteen of the producers were on the verge of bankruptcy. Last year the
sales had increased to 570,000 cases worth $4 million. During peak
season, the cooperative employs 120 people in a town with a population
of less than 700.
Other examples include a very small cooperative in northern Florida
that is selling its fresh vegetables and fruits to local school
districts. Some of the producers have seen their incomes triple as they
provide very competitively priced, nutritious and fresh produce to
school children. Rural Development was a partner in this cooperative;
much of the work was done by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service, the Farm Service Agency, and, of course, the farmers. Another
success story is a wheat farmer's cooperative in Colorado who purchased
a bakery that was closing. They now process their own wheat into bakery
products that are sold to a national sandwich chain and local
supermarkets in the Denver area. They have already exceeded their
capacity and are looking at options for expanding their operations.
In addition to the economic successes enjoyed by these operations,
Mr. Chairman, is the satisfaction one sees on the faces of the
producers when they realize they can be just as entrepreneurial as some
of the ``dot com'' companies. Success breeds success. Seeing people
realize they can be in charge of determining their future is one of the
most rewarding parts of this job. A few years ago I told you of the joy
I saw in people's faces after they had completed building their own
homes through our mutual and self help housing programs--believe me,
that joy is equaled when I see agricultural producers realize they can
take greater control and generate greater profits in the food chain.
They no longer feel captive of the markets.
I urge each Member of the Committee to visit some of these
operations and enjoy that experience for themselves. You have
appropriated the funds that made it possible.
BUDGET REQUEST
Mr. Chairman, the President's commitment to improving the economies
of rural America continues and that is reflected in the budget request
for fiscal year 2001. The Rural Development budget request for programs
is $12.4 billion, $1.3 billion higher than the level enacted for fiscal
year 2000. This level requires only about $300 million in additional
budget authority, not counting what is requested in the Farm Safety Net
proposals, which I will discuss later. But, Mr. Chairman, if the Rural
Development Mission is to deliver programs of this amount and carry out
our fiduciary responsibilities of protecting the $80 billion loan
portfolio, we must have sufficient administrative expenses.
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
The request for administrative expenses for fiscal year 2001 is
$581 million, $48 million higher than appropriated for fiscal year 2000
and includes $20 million increase in administrative expenses to support
a new guaranteed loan accounting system and other system improvements.
I realize the burden this places on the Committee, but the potential
risk that may occur without the appropriate level of oversight far
overshadows this cost. For example, between housing loans of the Rural
Housing Service and the farm credit operations of the Farm Service
Administration, we are obligating about $8 billion in guaranteed loans
annually, and we do not have an automated accounting system that
provides the capacity to manage these funds. This is irresponsible and
is not a legacy that I want to leave.
Yet, because we cannot afford to reduce staffing any further than
we have, I have made the decision to reduce other administrative
expenses, including investments in accounting systems, to maintain the
staffing level needed to deliver the programs and do the best we can in
managing the assets with which we have been entrusted. These were not
good decisions, and are decisions I would prefer not to make. For
example, when I became Under Secretary, the training budget for Rural
Development was about $11 million. Over the past years we have reduced
that budget to about $2 million in training that we classify as
mandatory, i.e, training that is the minimum needed for our staff to
perform at acceptable levels. The loan programs we administer are much
more complex than anything found in the private sector, and we have a
significant number of new employees that are coming on board. We are
not providing them adequate training. We have also reduced travel from
over $21 million to just over $11 million at a time when we need to
travel more to adequately supervise and monitor our loan portfolio. We
have made these decisions because we had to, but I have concerns about
our ability to maintain our fiduciary responsibilities. Mr. Chairman,
the $48 million increase requested for salaries and expenses is about
40 percent of the pay cost increases that we have had to absorb during
the time that I have served in this job. Absorbing these costs is the
same as a reduction as a reduction in funding..
An important part of the efforts to modernize field operations for
the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Farm Service Agency and
the Rural Development agencies is the effective consolidation of three
separate and largely redundant administrative systems inot one under
the proposed Support Services Bureau. This is a glaring inefficiency
that needs to be eliminated. Consolidated support would be provided for
information technology, financial management, travel, procurement,
civil rights and human resource management. These services would be
provided under the direction of an Executive Director who would report
to a board of directors comprised of the heads of the agencies to be
serviced. Unfortunately, language in the fiscal year 2000
Appropriations Act prevented us from implementing our plans for the
Support Services Bureau. I would ask you to take a look at that
language and work with us to move our operations into the modern world.
By poling resources in the administrative arena, each agency will be in
a better position to provide greater program support.
Mr. Chairman, before I leave the area of administrative expenses, I
would also like to advise the Committee that the Office of General
Counsel is critical to our success in protecting the interest of the
taxpayers . We consider the Office of General Counsel to be an integral
part of our team, and they are particularly helpful to us in resolving
the problems we encounter in our more complex lending programs, such as
like the multi-family housing and the electric loan programs. They have
my support and I believe they deserve the support of the Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take just a moment to discuss
consolidation of some of the administrative systems that serve the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Farm Service Agency, and
Rural Development. We should not get bogged down in terms such as
``Support Services Bureau'' that, in my opinion, may have confused the
objective. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Farm Service Agency and Rural
Development are, for the most part, located in the same offices, and we
are going to share one information system. Does it not, therefore, make
good sense that we have one personnel system, one travel administration
system, and. one procurement system that serves all three?
I would ask you to take another look at the language included in
the fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Act that prevents us from
implementing the plans for administrative consolidation; work with us
to improve our administrative operations and place us in a better
position to enhance delivery of the programs and services that each of
us are entrusted, by Congress, to provide to the residents of rural
areas.
PROGRAM BUDGET REQUEST
Mr. Chairman, I shall now discuss the requests for the various
programs administered by Rural Development.
RURAL HOUSING SERVICE
I was honored to attend the 50th anniversary of the single family
housing loan program in December of last year in Georgia at the home
built with the first loan issued under this program. The wife of the
family with the first loan and the widower of the Farmers Home
Administration employee making the first loan were also in attendance.
While the ownership has changed, the home is still in immaculate
condition. The story of how much this home, and hundreds of thousands
like it, have meant to rural families, and rural communities, is
something that should be told again and again. This country can be very
proud of this home ownership program.
The budget request for the programs administered by the Rural
Housing Service totals $6.7 billion, almost $900 million more than the
level appropriated for fiscal year 2000, requiring almost $200 million
more in budget authority. This increase reflects the Administration's
commitment to improving housing conditions in rural areas and, in
particular, improving homeownership opportunities, a key ingredient in
building stable communities and economies. The request for single
family housing, direct and guaranteed loans totals $5.0 billion and
will support about 64,000 housing units and, in the process, provide
nearly 44,000 jobs, primarily in the construction trades.
We are proposing a modest increase in the multi-family housing
program which provides housing for some of our most vulnerable
citizens. A significant portion of these units are occupied by female
heads of household, generally elderly females or single mothers, with
annual incomes of about $7,300. The budget request will provide for the
construction of 1,400 units and the rehabilitation of over 4,000
existing units. Mr. Chairman, while there is a significant need for new
multi-family housing throughout rural areas, we also have a significant
problem in meeting the need for rehabilitation of an aging portfolio,
and in maintaining the availability of these units for very low income
tenants. The request for the multi-family housing guaranteed loan
program will provide for the construction of about 6,400 units. The
request for rental assistance is $680 million, $40 million higher than
the level available for 2000. Most of the request is needed to renew
contracts for 42,800 units. Without rental assistance, it would be
impossible to provide affordable rental housing for very low income
families, most of whom have no other housing alternative.
As I have told the Committee on many occasions, one of the great
joys of this job is to see the satisfaction and absolute joy on the
faces of families and their children when they have completed building
their own homes with the help of new neighbors. The mutual and self
help program is community building at the most basic level, neighbor
helping neighbor in the construction of new homes. The Administration
is requesting a significant increase in this grant program, $12 million
which is used to provide the technical expertise and supervision during
construction. Families participating in the program receive loans
through the single family direct loan program.
We are also requesting modest increases in the farm labor housing
loans and grants and we are proposing $5 million be appropriated for
emergency assistance for migrant and seasonal farm workers. This
program, although authorized in the 1990 Farm Bill, was not funded
until last year's emergency supplemental appropriations act. The
contribution of migrant and seasonal farmworkers to feeding our nation
is often overlooked. The $20 million made available for the first time
last year is equally important and a very small cost to pay, compared
to the value these families contribute to this economy. The assistance
was used to pay back rent and utilities, school fees, and a number of
other obligations that could not be met, due to natural disasters
destroying the crops these individuals and families would have
harvested.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank the Committee for having
the foresight to provide $6 million in fiscal year 2000 for the Rural
Community Development Initiative. These funds will be used by a wide
variety of organizations to assist us in developing the capacity of
rural communities to become more self-reliant. It is through these
efforts that we endeavor to teach community leaders that dependence on
the Federal government is not the answer to long-term economic
problems. The communities, themselves, must develop the capacity to
build local economies. It is also through efforts like this that we
engage other organizations with resources to work with us in building
homes for low income families. We are very proud of the number of
funding partnerships we have established in the past couple of years.
Through these efforts we are stretching the capacity of the tax dollars
with which we are entrusted.
Mr. Chairman, we are also requesting a significant increase in the
low income housing repair loan and grant program, This program provides
the very basic improvements in owner occupied single family homes to
make the house safe and livable. However, the most important
contribution of the program may be that it allows elderly men and women
to live the remainder of their lives in their own homes with a degree
of dignity. It is also one of the most utilized programs we have in
most disaster situations. It was used extensively in North Carolina
following Hurricane Floyd.
The request for community facilities totals $484 million, $24
million of which is for grants, including $6 million to continue the
Rural Community Development Initiative which is being implemented this
year, and $5 million for the hazardous weather early warning alert
system, the need for which has been recently demonstrated again in
rural Georgia. Increasing the community facilities grant program is one
of our highest needs. We can accomplish more with this program than
almost any program in our portfolio. As Members of the Committee
realize, this program finances rural health facilities, child care
facilities, fire and safety facilities, jails, education facilities,
and almost any other type of essential community needed in rural
America. However, it is very difficult to reach many of the more
impoverished communities that are unable to repay loans. Additional
grant funds are needed to offset the cost of these loans.
RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICES
Mr. Chairman, the key to creating economic opportunity in rural
areas is the development of new businesses and employment
opportunities. This is primarily the role of the private sector.
However, due to concentration and integration of the agriculture
industry, and more recently the consolidation of the banking industry,
local lending institutions frequently do not have the capacity or the
capital needed to sustain local businesses and generate new growth.
Further, something that should not be overlooked is that frequently,
the Rural Business Service is only a partner, and sometimes a minor
partner, in the loans made through these programs. We expend a lot of
effort in every program, including housing and utilities, to leverage
other monies into the projects we finance.
The programs, particularly the Business and Industry loan guarantee
program, were enacted to supplement the efforts of local lending
institutions in providing that capital. The program requested for the
Rural Business-Cooperative Service is $1.5 billion with the majority of
the request for the Business and Industry Loan Guarantee program, $1.2
billion, compared to $869 million in fiscal year 2000. We will also
again establish a policy objective of $200 million of the total for the
development or expansion of cooperative businesses. As you know, we
have established similar priorities in other years, and while we have
not yet achieved our objectives, the level used by cooperatives is
increasing each year. For example, through the first quarter of fiscal
year 2000, we almost matched the level used by cooperatives in fiscal
year 1999.
I am particularly pleased that this budget request includes funding
for a Cooperative Equity Capital Fund which will be used to assist
producer's of livestock and other cooperatives to counter the effects
of market concentration. This request is included in the Farm Safety
Net proposal as a mandatory expenditure of the Commodity Credit
Corporation. I have mentioned that the lack of capital is a major
problem that rural areas face in economic growth. While not everyone
agrees on the degree to which capital is lacking in rural areas, there
is agreement on the lack of equity capital, and this need is greatest
when crop and livestock prices are depressed. More and more producers
are beginning to realize that the only means of gaining a greater share
of the food dollar is to own the processing or manufacturing
facilities. We intend to use this program to meet some of that demand
and we will be submitting legislation for the consideration of Congress
outlining how we intend to use the program.
Complementing this request is an increase in cooperative
development grants which will be used to assist in the development of
new cooperatives. These grants are made to cooperative development
centers which augment our internal staff resources in providing
technical, financial, and management assistance in the creation and
maturation of new cooperative ventures. As provided in last year's
Appropriations Act, a portion of these funds will be devoted to
assistance to small and minority producers. It is these producers that
more frequently, and more quickly, feel the effects of reductions in
prices. The same producers can benefit more through the use of
cooperatives to market or process their commodities. The Administration
will also again be submitting legislation to authorize assistance to
non-agriculturally related cooperatives. I believe such authority is
important to the economic success of rural areas.
We are proposing that the Intermediary Relending Program be
increased by almost 70 percent. The demand for this program is
increasing significantly, and with part of the increase we wish to
improve our ability to assist tribal governments establish revolving
loan funds. We plan to do this in conjunction with the Small Business
Administration and the Department of Treasury's Office of Community
Development Financial Institutions. This would be a joint effort to aid
tribal governments establish lending capacity, but also to aid private
sector lenders in dealing with some of the obstacles they have
encountered in lending to tribal organizations. The importance of these
small revolving loan funds to rural communities is demonstrated not
only in the successes of this program, but also in the fact that a
significant portion of other grant programs are used to establish
similar loan funds.
We are also proposing an $8 million level for the Rural Business
Opportunity Grant program, a 100 percent increase over the level
provided for fiscal year 2000. This program was authorized in the 1996
Farm Bill and funded for the first time for the current fiscal year.
These funds can be used by a variety of organizations, such as the
Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities, Rural Conservation and
Development districts and others to develop economic development
strategies.
The budget request also includes $3.5 million in budget authority
for bio-mass demonstration projects. Specifically, $2 million will be
available for firms that will use the Business and Industry loan
guarantee program to develop, process, or market bio-based products; $1
million will be available for electric borrowers to demonstrate the
value of generating electricity using bio-based products as the fuel,
and $500,000 will be available for cooperative development grants for
cooperatives that process or market bio-based products.
The National Sheep Industry Improvement Center has recently entered
into an agreement with the Livestock Production Association to
establish a revolving loan fund which will be used to improve the
infrastructure of the sheep and goat industry. We are requesting $5
million of the remaining $30 million authorized for this program to
augment that effort.
We are also requesting $15 million for the third year of the
Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities designated in the 2nd round of
this program.
RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE
The Rural Utilities Service provides financing for electric,
telecommunications, and water and waste disposal services that are the
backbone of economic development. Last fall we celebrated the 50th
anniversary of the telecommunications program, and this year we will
celebrate the 60th and 65th year of the water and waste disposal and
electric programs, respectively. The successes of these programs and
the benefits they have provided to rural America are unparalleled. Over
$70 billion has been invested in rural America through these programs,
and the economic growth they have generated has repaid the cost 100
fold. And even more remarkable is that less than one percent of the
amount loaned has been lost through defaults. The capital investment
generated by the program levels requested in the budget will generate
about 100,000 jobs, but more important is the opportunities generated,
particularly through the telecommunications programs. It has long been
the policy of RUS that fiber optic cable be used for telecommunication
rather than the copper wire that is found in most urban areas. However,
much of the rural traffic still must be routed through other exchanges
with less capacity. The ``digital divide'' is composed of issues such
as this.
Mr. Chairman, when President Clinton announced the Digital
Initiative in early February, he was criticized for constructing a
political deal, and he responded that, ``this is not a political deal.
If I had waited for the market to solve universal telephone access,
there would still be places in Arkansas where people wouldn't have a
phone.'' Paraphrasing another comment in that regard, the bottom line
of the President's proposal is a better bottom line for firms in the
technology industry. The President knows how important these programs
have been to rural America over the decades and he sees the
opportunities they can bring in the future.
The level requested for the programs administered by the Rural
Utilities Service is $4.3 billion, the same as is available for fiscal
year 2000. For electric loans we are requesting $1.5 billion, requiring
$26 million in budget authority. Again this year, we respectfully
request that the budget authority be provided in a single amount,
rather than by individual program. This additional flexibility permits
us to more effectively manage demand for the four different programs.
Our request also includes $670 million for telecommunication loans,
including those made by the Rural Telephone Bank, and an additional
$325 million for the distance learning/telemedicine programs, which
includes a significant increase for grant funds. One of the concerns
that I have with the lack of opportunity in many rural areas is that
unless we are able to reach the children in poverty stricken families
and provide them the opportunity to expand their education, they will
soon be left behind by the technology-driven economy and the rapidity
with which knowledge is changing. Distance learning/telemedicine
program is one of the best tools we have for ensuring that they are not
left behind. We also request $102 million to finance a broadband
internet access loan and grant pilot program.
The request for water and waste disposal programs is $1.6 billion
which will require less budget authority than was available in fiscal
year 1999, but a significant increase over fiscal year 2000. With this
funding we estimate that we will build, improve, or expand 1,155 water
and waste disposal systems serving 2.4 million people and create 42,000
jobs in the construction related fields. In addition, we will improve
our leveraging of funds with State Revolving funds that are also used
to finance water and waste disposal systems to ensure that each dollar
provided by the taxpayers is used to its maximum. Our primary target is
still those residents without safe, dependable water in their homes,
especially those with the most serious quality or quantity problems--
the systems classified as Water 2000 systems.
When we were challenged early in this Administration to provide
every resident in rural America with safe, dependable water in their
homes, we knew that we could not meet the ultimate objective. However,
the challenge has led to the reduction in the number of rural residents
without this basic necessity from 1.1 million in 1990 to under 700,000
now, and this is something we all should be proud of. We will continue
to pursue that objective in fiscal year 2001, although we must be frank
and tell you that the ultimate objective may not be reachable due to
sparsity of population making affordable systems improbable or terrain
that increases cost to the point that systems are not affordable.
Mr. Chairman, before I close, I must return to the issue of
administrative expenses. These programs that all of us are so very
proud of and that contribute so much to the economies and the quality
of life in rural America cannot continue to be delivered without
adequate support of the dedicated employees and the automated systems
that are needed to ensure proper accounting of the taxpayers dollars.
To continue down the path that we have been on in the past few years
may be penny wise, but it is dollar foolish. I am very proud of our
accomplishments in reducing expenses. But, being economical and
reducing expenses where one can is different than not providing the
resources needed for our staff to operate successfully. Since I have
held this position, the Rural Development Mission Area has met every
streamlining target we have been given, but we have also been asked to
absorb $80 million in pay raises and other inflationary items that also
should be considered as reductions, but never are. Rural Development
and other USDA entities have reached the breaking point and without
some relief, all of us may face the embarrassment of a major failure. I
do not want this on my record, and I, as a former Member of Congress,
am sure that none of you want to be responsible for such a failure
either.
The Congress and the Administration, as well as the taxpayer, have
every right to be proud of the fact that we have eliminated the word
``deficit'' from policy discussions. Let us acknowledge the fact and
move on to ensuring that every individual in this country has the
opportunity to participate in a dynamic, growing economy, but do so
with the recognition that delivering these programs wisely costs money.
The economic growth we create with these investments in rural America
more than pay for the cost of the programs and the associated
administrative cost. It is time we started counting both sides of the
ledger.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, this concludes my formal
statement. The Administrators and I would be glad to answer any
questions you may have. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you to discuss the Rural Development budget request with you.
______
ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED QUESTIONS
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
FEDERAL-STATE MARKETING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Question. Please provide the budget baseline for the Federal-State
Marketing Improvement Program. Please include a listing of fiscal year
2000 and 2001 grants and an estimate of the backlog of applications for
this program for fiscal year 2001.
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 appropriation for the Federal State
Marketing Improvement Program, or FSMIP, is $1.2 million. For fiscal
year 2001, the Agricultural Marketing Service is requesting an
additional $300,000. FSMIP grants for fiscal year 2000 will be awarded
on the basis of two rounds of competition among proposals submitted by
eligible State Agencies. Fund allocations for the first round will be
announced in late April, 2000, and those for the second round will be
announced in August, 2000. Applications for grants typically exceed
available funds by a ratio of approximately three to one. While AMS
does not maintain a backlog list, proposals that are not funded during
a particular round of competition may be reconsidered during subsequent
rounds at the request of the applying State agency.
NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM
Question. Please explain why the $639,000 requested for consumer
outreach in the National Organic Program cannot be offset from reduced
costs in the program resulting in finalization of the rules to
implement this program.
Answer. AMS is not proposing to finance the initial accreditation
costs from current funding because there will be no reduction in
organic program activities or expenditures after the rule is finalized.
The program staff, whose efforts were previously focused on developing
and issuing the final rule, must now change its focus to various
related activities including:
--research on, and the possible development of, organic standards for
aquatic animals, wildlife, honey production, hydroponic
production and greenhouse production;
--conducting regulation review and amendment;
--reviewing substances petitioned to the National Organic Standards
Board for addition to the National List;
--conducting day-to-day administration of the National Organic
Standards Board;
--developing training materials and conducting training activities
for producers, handlers and certifying agents on how to comply
with the Act and regulations;
--reviewing documents and participating in the negotiation of organic
program equivalency agreements between the United States and
foreign governments;
--reviewing and recognizing foreign government organic accreditation
programs for equivalency determinations;
--conducting program communication and education outreach to organic
producers, organic handlers, and consumers of organic products;
--conducting program outreach to minority and limited resource
farmers; and
--conducting continuing performance reviews of certifying agents and
general enforcement of the Act and regulations after the
initial accreditations (expected to begin 12 months after the
final rule is published). Funding for these activities was not
available during the development of the organic rule.
AMS is requesting $639,000 to fund the cost of initially
accrediting, without charge, as many as 59 certifying agents over an
18-month period. As recommended by Congress in fiscal year 2000
appropriations, AMS constructed a national organic program that takes
into consideration the needs of small farmers, handlers, and
certification agents. The proposed rule includes a provision that the
initial costs of accreditation services will be provided without charge
so that small farmers, handlers, and certification agents are not
excessively burdened by additional costs. If this funding is not
provided, the proposed rule will require substantial changes and
consequently, further delays in implementation.
Specifically, AMS anticipates that accreditation costs for fiscal
year 2001 will amount to $450,680 and that accreditation costs for 6
months of fiscal year 2002 will amount to $188,320. In addition to
accreditation services, these funds will allow the program to develop
and issue a program manual, and develop and distribute some of the
educational materials needed for consumers, producers, handlers,
certifying agents, and trading partners. AMS is requesting that
$639,000 be transferred to the Expenses and Refunds, Inspection and
Grading of Farm Products fund account for the cost of the National
Organic Program and that such funds remain available until expended.
AMS does not anticipate requesting additional start-up funds beyond the
existing request, which covers the anticipated 18-month implementation
period.
Accreditation requires that AMS staff review certifier quality
manuals for accuracy and completeness and perform at least one on-site
audit evaluation. During an on-site audit, certifiers will be assessed
for business capacity and competency in accordance with International
Organization for Standardization Guide 65, as well as their ability to
attest to the technical standards for organic production and handling.
ORGANIC SEAFOOD STANDARDS
Question. Please provide an update on activities regarding the
organic seafood regulations.
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 appropriations Act included $75,000 to
begin development of organic standards with respect to seafood. To
initiate this process, AMS will hold two public meetings to discuss
issues related to the organic production and handling of aquatic
animals to be labeled as organic: on April 10, 2000, in Mobile,
Alabama; and on April 12, 2000, in Anchorage, Alaska. AMS will hold a
third public meeting on May 3, 2000, in Providence, Rhode Island. We
will also participate in the April 10, 2000, Workshop on Organic
Certification of Wild Aquatic Animals in Seattle, Washington, sponsored
by Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska and Governor Tony Knowles from
Alaska. AMS will be participating in the June 23-24, 2000, aquaculture
production standards workshop at the University of Minnesota, St. Paul,
Minnesota.
______
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
LINE ITEM FUNDING
Question. In your budget justification notes, there is no line item
for the following items. Please provide the fiscal year 2001 budget
request for the following: Foot-and-mouth-disease; Tropical bont tick;
Golden nematode; and Witchweed.
Answer. These items were not included on the Summary of Increases
and Decreases because no change in funding was requested. The funding
levels are included on the table on page 14-18. The fiscal year 2001
funding levels are:
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 2001
Line item request
Foot-and-mouth disease............................................ $3803
Tropical bont tick................................................ 407
Golden nematode................................................... 580
Witchweed......................................................... 1,506
GRASSHOPPER/MORMON CRICKET
Question. Does the fiscal year 2001 budget request provide funding
for the control of the grasshoppers/Mormon crickets?
Answer. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is
currently conducting spring predictive surveys to determine the needs
for crop protection programs. Our effort is funded through contingency
funds. In fiscal year 1999, we used $850,000 and in fiscal year 2000 we
plan to use $404,000 for these activities. At this time, there is no
clear indication of the funding level required for the crop protection
programs in fiscal year 2000, but the need could be $1.3 million or
higher.
The fiscal year 2001 funding needs for grasshopper and Mormon
cricket control will depend on this year's weather conditions--lack of
a cool, damp spring will promote the development of high grasshopper/
Mormon cricket populations in areas where they previously existed. Dry
weather conditions in the spring exacerbate higher grasshopper/Mormon
cricket populations because there will be increased numbers of
grasshopper/Mormon cricket eggs laid and less forage, increasing the
competition between livestock and the pests for survival. While we can
not predict at this time what our funding needs will be and did not
request funding for fiscal year 2001, we do know that we will need to
continue survey work to determine where grasshopper/Mormon cricket
problems will potentially exist and how to address them.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Question. Please provide the amount of funding for each activity
that will be funded from the fiscal year 2001 budget request increase
of $5,241,000 for the emergency management systems program.
Answer. APHIS proposes to spend the $5.2 million increase on the
following activities: $260,000 for an educational campaign aimed at
providing information to Federal, State, and local governments,
industry, stakeholders, and the public; $657,000 for specialized
training for State and Federal emergency managers and private
practitioners; $2 million for animal health emergency managers in the
field to assist states with establishing animal health emergency
management standards and to support the states during actual responses;
$230,000 for a genetic fingerprinting library; $300,000 for the EpiInfo
2000 system, a geographical information system, and hand held units to
record geographical data; $300,000 for preparing and updating 6 disease
plans and conducting 1 National and 2 regional test exercises; and
$1,494,000 for equipping the Emergency Management Operations Center.
KUDZU
Question. Does the fiscal year 2001 budget request for noxious
weeds include funding the for Kudzu projects?
Answer. In fiscal year 2000, APHIS will continue to fund
approximately $45,000 in a cooperative agreement with Mississippi State
University for demonstration of Kudzu control techniques. Mississippi
State University reported preliminary results from the Kudzu
demonstration project at the 2000 Southern Weed Science Society
meeting. Researchers are demonstrating and evaluating various control
techniques. The project will continue in fiscal year 2000 at a new
site. In fiscal year 2001, APHIS will reevaluate the Kudzu project to
determine if the demonstration project control techniques can be
effective in widespread eradication and if so, will continue to fund
Kudzu activities in fiscal year 2001.
PINK BOLLWORM
Question. How much funding is needed to continue the pink bollworm
eradication program in Arizona and to begin the program in New Mexico,
Texas, and Mexico in fiscal year 2001? The fiscal year 2001 budget
request proposes a decrease of $242,000 for this program. Which
activities are continued and which are discontinued for fiscal year
2001?
Answer. Before a pink bollworm eradication program can begin in New
Mexico, Texas, and Mexico, funding for larval cut out racks (where pink
bollworm eggs feed on an artificial diet until they hatch into larvae),
pupal maturation racks (where the larvae spin into cocoons and begin
maturing into moths), and upgrades to the existing electrical utilities
is still necessary. Our current estimate for these costs is $350,000.
With the fiscal year 2001 requested funds, we will continue to
produce sterile insects for release in the San Joaquin Valley,
California; however, we will not be in a position to move the
eradication program to New Mexico, Texas and Mexico.
EMERGING PLANT PESTS
Question. The fiscal year 2001 budget request proposes an increase
of $25,079,000 for the emerging plant pests program. In the past, APHIS
has been able to use emergency funds for citrus canker and the Asian
longhorned beetle eradication. Why has the Administration chosen to
request appropriations for this work instead of using emergency funds?
Answer. The Secretary's emergency transfer authority is a vital
tool in enabling APHIS to respond quickly and effectively to incursions
of exotic pests and diseases. The difficult issue is trying to
determine the best funding mechanism when a given pest or disease
incursion requires a multi-year eradication effort. Because it became
apparent that the citrus canker, Asian longhorned beetle, and
Mediterranean fruit fly programs would take more than 2 years to
complete, we did not feel it was appropriate to continue to rely on CCC
emergency funding, and instead decided to request funds for these
programs through the regular budget process where it can receive the
benefit of Congressional scrutiny.
SCRAPIE
Question. Why has the Administration decided to put an emphasis on
eradicating scrapie from the U.S. in the fiscal year 2001 proposed
budget?
Answer. Scrapie is a fatal disease of sheep and goats that is one
of a group of diseases called transmissible spongiform encephalopathies
(TSEs), which also includes bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).
This disease could impact the American food supply and the public
health. The sheep industry has asked APHIS to accelerate efforts to
eradicate scrapie because the disease costs the U.S. sheep industry an
estimated $20 million per year in direct losses and millions of dollars
more in lost potential markets and flock productivity.
Currently, producers in scrapie-free countries have a significant
competitive advantage over U.S. sheep producers for several reasons.
First, as a result of scrapie, U.S. sheep producers are subject to
higher production costs and lower revenues. Second, importing countries
are demanding that imported sheep come from scrapie-free countries or
regions, and U.S. producers are unable to make this certification. As a
result, U.S. producers are locked out of the international market--a
situation that is taking a financial toll on American sheep producers.
In addition, the presence of scrapie in the United States may
jeopardize our ability to market a variety of ruminant products such as
meat and bone meal internationally--due to elevated concerns about all
TSEs resulting from the occurrence of BSE in Europe. APHIS has
determined that it is necessary to accelerate efforts to eradicate
scrapie from the United States to help the U.S. sheep industry become
competitive again in the global market place and to protect existing
U.S. markets for all ruminant products.
WILDLIFE SERVICES OPERATIONS
Question. The program fiscal year 2001 budget proposes a decrease
of $2,711,000 for Wildlife Services Operations program. Which ongoing
activities will be affected by this proposed decrease?
Answer. APHIS proposes that cooperators of Wildlife Services
programs assume a greater share of the operations costs in fiscal year
2001. Producers, States, and local governments are responsible for a
large portion of the costs of running programs where they are the
beneficiaries. We will work with program cooperators to determine how
to best make the program reductions if the cooperators are unable to
assume a larger share of the costs in light of the proposed reduction
in fiscal year 2001.
We have not placed into priority order how we would implement
program reductions if necessary.
Question. How does APHIS propose to enforce that cooperating
agencies and individuals take on a larger share of the costs for
projects currently underway? Does the fiscal year 2001 budget assume
receipts from these agencies? If so, how much?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget reduction for Wildlife Services
Operations assumes that cooperating agencies and individuals will
contribute a greater share of the costs for the projects underway.
Cooperators are already contributing more than 50 percent of program
costs. It is the cooperators' discretion to take on a greater share of
the costs for the programs, assuming that they will prioritize funding
for those projects which benefit them directly. If they choose not to
raise their level of contributions, APHIS will be forced to reduce
program activities.
NATIONAL POULTRY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Question. How much funding does the fiscal year 2001 budget request
propose for the National Poultry Improvement Plan?
Answer. APHIS has included approximately $616,000 in the fiscal
year 2001 budget request to support the National Poultry Improvement
Plan (NPIP). Of this amount, APHIS will use $236,000 for program
coordination; $368,000 for diagnostic testing related to the NPIP; and
$12,000 for the Advisory Committee on the NPIP. The Advisory Committee
serves as a liaison between the poultry industry and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture on matters pertaining to U.S. poultry health.
SUMMARY OF INCREASES AND DECREASES
Question. On page 14-17 of the Explanatory Notes, what is contained
in the line item for ``All Other'' ? Does the Contingency Fund stay at
the fiscal year 2000 level for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The entry for ``All Other'' comprises all APHIS line items
for which we are not proposing any program changes for fiscal year
2001. This encompasses the following line items: FMD/Emerging Foreign
Animal Diseases; Tropical bont tick; Golden nematode, Witchweed, and
the Contingency Fund.
______
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE
ADVANCED SPATIAL TECH, MISSISSIPPI (PRECISION AGRICULTURE)
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Advanced Spatial Technology, Mississippi grant.
Answer. This research will evaluate the use of site-specific
technology and assess the economics of its application. Cultural
practices will be studied and integrated into management system using-
site specific technology to monitor yield and variable rate
application. This project will expand on work conducted under the
Special Technology Special Research Grant funded at $350,000 in fiscal
year 1997 and $600,000 in 1998.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The need for this research is to provide farmers with
unbiased information on the application and economics of site specific
technologies for cotton production in the mid-south.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to evaluate site
specific technologies and develop recommendations for management
decisions related to fertilization, pest control, and other cultural
practices.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1997
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1997 was $350,000, for fiscal
year 1998 it was $600,000, for 1999 it was $1,000,000 and for fiscal
year 2000 $1,000,000 for a total of $2,950,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds provided for this grant are $620,300
in 1998, and $942,000 in 1999. These funds are State appropriations
that support the salaries of scientists and their support staff.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being conducted on various Mississippi
Agricultural Experiment Station branch locations around the State.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The principal investigators anticipated the completion date
for the original objective to be in fiscal year 2004.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project was subject to an initial evaluation at its
start in fiscal year 1998. The last evaluation was in July of 1999.
Progress so far has resulted in useful information already being
applied at the farm level.
AFLATOXIN RESEARCH, ILLINOIS
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been conducted under the Aflatoxin Research, Illinois grant.
Answer. This research is focused on development of strains of corn
which will be highly resistant to infection with Aspergillus flavus and
the production of aflatoxin under field conditions. Transfer of genetic
material from resistant strains to other, usable, inbred strains of
corn is underway and these new strains are being field tested to
determine level of resistance to fungal infection.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for the
research?
Answer. There is much national concern about the role of aflatoxins
as carcinogens in the human population. The aflatoxin material is also
toxic to animals and humans. The presence of the fungus in corn results
in a lower value for the crop and the possible rejection of the corn by
the grain elevator owners. Aflatoxin contamination continues to be a
serious problem in the southern and southeastern United States, with
additional outbreaks also occurring during severe drought conditions in
the upper mid-west and other areas during the past few years.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the research was the reduction of
infestation of corn with Aspergillus flavus and the consequent
reduction of aflatoxin in the corn produced. The researchers have
produced strains with resistance genes for both prevention of infection
with A. flavus as well as the production of the aflatoxin itself. Field
trials have been in progress to determine effectiveness of these
resistance factors under normal growing conditions when exposed to the
fungus. The work has now progressed to the stage where it seems likely
that more than one gene will have to be transferred to produce strong
resistance to the Aspergillus infection and production of aflatoxin.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1990, $87,000; fiscal year 1991, $131,000; fiscal
years 1992-1993, $134,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $126,000; fiscal
years 1995 through 2000, $113,000 per year. A total of $1,290,000 has
been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds by
fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds have been from State appropriated
dollars in the form of principal investigator and technical salaries,
equipment usage, and experimental plot expenses. These have been at the
level of $130,000 for fiscal years 1997 and 1998, and $24,747 for
fiscal year 1999.
Question. Where is this work being performed?
Answer. The research is being performed in the Department of Crop
Sciences at the University of Illinois.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
was 1995, but the project was revised last year to continue to fiscal
year 2002. The primary reason for the extension of the work is that
there appear to be multiple resistance genes which are necessary to
prevent both the infection with the fungus and the synthesis of the
aflatoxin compound. The investigators are very optimistic about the
future success of this approach. This work was discussed at a meeting
of Multi-State Research Project NC-129 on January 25-26, 1999 in New
Orleans and the Principal Investigators are members of the Technical
Committee of this project.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project was evaluated on March 10, 2000. The
investigators have made good progress on this project. They presently
have identified that the key issue is to insert genes coding for two
enzymes, chitinase and B glucanase, which will attack the fungus cell
wall. They have many options on how to enhance the resistance level in
the corn and several genetic transformations that can be tested. The
resistance of plants to Aspergillus flavus does not carry over to
resistance to Fusarium monoiliforme. A major impediment now is the
ability to do field trials of sufficient scale to test the new
varieties and the variation in environmental conditions which often
results in a growing season with a low incidence of aflatoxin
production even in susceptible plants. The research team indicated that
additional funds would be required in order to accelerate their current
rate of progress.
AGRICULTURAL DIVERSIFICATION AND SPECIALTY CROPS GRANT
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Agricultural Diversification and Specialty Crops
grant.
Answer. There are numerous outcomes from this grant over the past
year:
--A book on plants for Hawaiian lei material is in the publications
office for final work-up.
--Video conferences in June 1998 and September 1998 were held to
discuss issues relating to food safety on the farm, and
included USDA and FDA personnel in Washington and over 90
participants at each session. A food safety website was
developed (http://www.hawaiiag.org/foodsafe/foodsaf.htm) and an
article was written for the Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation
newsletter covering on-farm food safety issues.
--In 1999 the project co-chaired a Hawaii transportation industry
education task force and developed and wrote with 18 co-authors
the ``Preflight Checklist for Shipping Your Quality Hawaii
Agricultural Product.''
--The project worked with 32 co-authors to produce the handbook
``Hawaiian Islands Air Cargo Resource Book 1999-2000,'' which
lists information on 130 service providers and valuable
information on how to ship a product in the most efficient
ways.
--A talk was given at the 2nd Annual Hawaii Air Cargo Symposium in
September 1999 on the progress of the transportation education
task force.
--The project developed a fact sheet called, ``Estimating the per-
pound cost of a dried or condensed food based on process yield
and farm-gate price,'' that helps entrepreneurs calculate
processing loss and potential profits from food dehydration.
--Three tools for entrepreneurs will be completed in the first
quarter of 2000: An extensive fact sheet on the ``Costs and
Considerations for Establishing an Entrepreneurial Community or
Shared Use or Test Kitchen Incubator,'' a poster to help food
product entrepreneurs quickly calculate their cost of
production; and a fact sheet on the cost of establishing
incubator kitchens for food processing entrepreneurs, including
an emphasis on safe food processing.
--The project is advising the Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar Company
on the possibility of starting a large-scale white taro
production and processing operation in high pressure minimal
processing for pineapple and other tropical fruits, the cause
of premature fading of pineapple slices has been determined and
the temperature, pressure and time relationship has been
identified to achieve sterility.
--The project is collecting data and information on cultural
practices for kava, a nutraceutical. Projects with other
funding sources have been facilitated on the major disease of
kava in Hawaii (cucumber mosaic virus dieback) and on the
biosynthesis of kava lactones in a bioreactor. Cooperation with
the private sector is being facilitated on the production and
processing of stevia, a natural sweetener.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Hawaii's economy continues to lag behind national averages
where growth is concerned. The various projects under the umbrella of
the Diversified Agriculture and Specialty Crop grant rely on
information research to build decision-making tools. These tools help
entrepreneurs make more informed decisions. When entrepreneurs make
better decisions they have a higher chance of making a profit in
business. The decision-making tools are being used in the Hawaii, the
Pacific, and on the mainland.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the original proposal was to screen potential
food and non-food crops for commercial development in Hawaii and then
make earnest attempts to work with willing and able entrepreneurs to
move the results of research to the private sector. The lei manual, in
final preparation, will provide entrepreneurs with information on how
to grow plants that they never had information about, and they will
also be armed with a cost of production framework that is specific to
nursery production. While the University of Hawaii continues to screen
crops to help entrepreneurs pick the best ones for production and the
market place, there are few decision making tools that can help
entrepreneurs take their products more successfully to market. Thus,
there is an emphasis on information tools such as a transportation
handbook and a cost of production poster. To help farmers prepare for
increased food safety scrutiny, the University of Hawaii is working
with Hawaii State agencies and other non-profits to reach out to
farmers with critical information.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated, by fiscal year, through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows, fiscal years 1988-1989, $156,000 per year; fiscal years 1990-
1993, $154,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $145,000; and fiscal years
1995-1999, $131,000 per year; and fiscal year 2000, $131,000. A total
of $1,859,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The University of Hawaii provides in-kind support in the
form of laboratory and office facilities, equipment and equipment
maintenance, and administrative support services: $68,503 in fiscal
year 1992; $75,165 in fiscal year 1993; and approximately $75,000/year
in fiscal years 1994-96, approximately $20,000/year in fiscal years
1997-2000. Funds are also being leveraged from other private sector,
State and Federal sources for the development of nutraceuticals.
Nearly $50,000 of in-kind support has come from private sector and
State partners, including $8,000 from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs
and $30,000 from the private sector on the high pressure minimal
processing project. The value of community time on all the publications
written in the past year or so is also well over $75,000.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at the University of Hawaii's
College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources on the island of
Oahu, and other Hawaiian islands as necessary.
Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of this project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date for additional or related objectives?
Answer. All taro work is completed. Lei plant manual will be out in
the first quarter of 2000. Work is just starting on transportation and
food safety issues and will continue through 2002. Work on business
related information tools will continue through 2002. Work continues on
high pressure processing of tropical fruits and will continue through
2002. Work on nutraceuticals, particularly cultural practices and
disease management of kava and stevia, is continuing through 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Project PI's are in regular contact with project manager at
USDA-CSREES. The USDA manager has seen outcomes on a regular basis and
visits the project at least once per year to evaluate progress and help
plan subsequent or related project objectives.
AGRICULTURAL DIVERSITY/RED RIVER, MN AND ND
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Agricultural Diversity Grant.
Answer. This multi-year, multi-phase project will have six specific
components. They are: (1) vegetable growing research--especially field
and glasshouse related research, (2) vegetable collection and storage
research and/or related storage or distribution business development,
(3) development of processing industries for the fresh market or
research related to the fresh products for market, (4) development of
marketing and/or supply associations among vegetable producers, (5)
development of processing industries for the ready-to-eat salad market
or research related to ready-to-eat products, and (6) development of
processing industries for the frozen vegetable products market or
research related to frozen products. This first phase of this multi-
phase project will concentrate its industry development and research
activities in three areas: vegetable growing research--especially field
and glasshouse related research, development of marketing and/or supply
associations among vegetable producers, and development of processing
industries for the ready-to-eat salad market or research related to
ready-to-eat products. The second phase of this multi-phase project
will concentrate its activities in four areas: continued research on
vegetable production, including commercial greenhouse production, field
production using Missouri River water for irrigation; development of
markets for fresh product; preparation of a business plan for a ready-
to-eat delicatessen salad processing facility in the region; and
analysis of the potential for adding higher value complementary crops
to the rotation mix in vegetable producing areas.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Initially the growing of vegetables in the region was
driven by an opportunity to meet increasing consumer demand for fresh
vegetables and concerns over both the cost of water and the
environmental impacts of the use of chemicals in the traditional
vegetable producing regions of the southern United States. This
industry currently raises three crops of vegetables a year. This
requires extensive irrigation in the hot summer months. Population
growth and increased domestic and industrial demands for water have
created significant pressures to shift water usage away from
agriculture and toward other domestic and industrial needs.
Additionally, use of chemicals to fight soil bacteria has raised
environmental concerns in these States. These issues created a need to
identify other regions to produce vegetables, especially in the summer
months. The northern plains States of Minnesota, North Dakota and South
Dakota have been identified as one area that could meet this need. In
addition, the opportunity to add a high-value crop to the rotation
cycle for northern Great Plains farmers can help to decrease their
dependence upon program crops. The shift in cropping patterns can have
a positive effect on farm income and lessen the need for outside or
Federal financial assistance. Interest in the potential for adding
higher value crop to the rotation cycle, including vegetables, has
increased significantly in the past year due to the poor farm economy.
Research on the potential for adding new crops to the region's
production base could help stabilize the farm economy in the region and
lessen the need for outside financial assistance to farmers.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The project objectives include: (1) Conduct three
replicated field trials on growing of carrots; (2) Continue study of
vegetable growing techniques in Europe and continue negotiations with
vegetable growing research facilities/laboratories in Europe to
transfer growing knowledge to the region; (3) Review current and future
market opportunities for further development of the industry and
identify strategies and partners for pursuing these opportunities and
take appropriate organizing steps; (4) Develop and maintain a web page
for this vegetable industry project; (5) Conduct market research for
establishment of a ready-to-eat delicatessen salad processing facility
in the region; (6) Conduct market research for establishment of a
ready-to-eat fresh-bagged salad processing facility in the region; (7)
Continue business development planning for establishment of a ready-to-
eat delicatessen salad processing facility in the region; and, (8)
Continue business development planning for establishment of a ready-to-
eat fresh-bagged salad processing facility in the region. Funding for
this project was received July 1, 1998 at which time work on the
project began. The Red River Trade Council Vegetable Industry Task
Force has a number of specific activities currently underway to help
develop regional vegetable processing markets for vegetable production.
In the area of Deli-salad production the Vegetable Task Force
continues to work on transferring state-of-the-art deli-salad and
upstream processing technology that produces long-shelf-life,
preservative-free wet salads to the region. Over the past several
years, researchers have conducted market opportunity studies, taste-
test evaluation, and are in the process of business planning and
coordinating additional partners to capitalize construction of a new
processing facilities in the region. The work conducted in this process
has identified specific technology that is used by up-stream suppliers
of a deli-salad company. This technology produces the highest quality
pre-processed vegetables that can be stored at room temperature for up
to 90 days. This technology allows several different vegetables to be
processed using the same equipment and requires little time to switch
to different vegetables. A facility like this in the region that is
capable of processing several different vegetables is critical to allow
production and market diversification.
Significant research has been conducted to understand the market
opportunities available in premium dehydrated products, especially
dehydrated vegetables. This research has identified several different
vegetables that provide opportunities depending on the processing yield
that our products would provide. Initial vegetable production trials
were conducted in the summer of 1999. Results from these trials were
positive and additional research will be conducted to evaluate
additional varieties and production and storage practices in the summer
of 2000.
Greenhouse Production issues are being examined by the Red River
Trade Council which is developing a greenhouse task force to evaluate
the potential for controlled environment production in the region. The
Red River Trade Council has worked with extension and industry in the
Netherlands to understand issues facing the development of this
industry in the region. The Greenhouse Task Force is working to
identify markets and feasibility for controlled environment production
to provide year-round supply of high-quality vegetables to supply
processed and fresh markets.
Market research conducted on high value products from alfalfa
indicated that there is a potential for development of an alfalfa
processing facility in our region. Additional work to coordinate
research, identify potential industrial partners, and further evaluate
the market feasibility is continuing.
Significant effort is being conducted to develop cooperative
marketing systems that allow production to be focused on specific-
quality traits. The Red River Trade Council is working to facilitate
development of farmer alliances or next generation cooperatives to
supply specific-quality products to the marketplace.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998
with appropriations for fiscal year 1998, 1999 and 2000 of $250,000
each year for a total of $750,000 appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Efforts have been made to secure non-Federal funding from
individual States and commodity groups. To date the States of North
Dakota and Minnesota have been a source of approximately $65,000.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The work is being carried out in Minnesota, North Dakota
and South Dakota.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Progress is being made on the original objectives. It is
expected that this will be a multi-year, multi-phase project. Work is
expected to continue until June 30, 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project was evaluated by review of the proposal and is
subject to annual project reports. An on-site review is scheduled for
June of 2000.
AG-BASED INDUSTRIAL LUBRICANTS RESEARCH PROGRAM, IOWA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the agricultural-based industrial lubricants research
program grant.
Answer. This project is a continuation of nine years of activity
conducted to target specific applications, establish baseline
performance data, develop formulations of additives and chemical
modifications, administer laboratory and field tests, characterize, and
build relationships for commercialization of industrial lubricants
derived from U.S. grown vegetable-based oils. Baseline performance data
will be compiled to establish fatty acid compositions, will serve as
guide to develop strategies for genetic modifications, additive
development, establish standards relative to toxicity and
biodegradability, and characterize compatibility with specific metallic
and non-metallic components. The grant has been peer reviewed
internally at the University of Northern Iowa.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
research, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Primary local and regional need is related to expanding
value-added applications of agricultural commodities in order to
stimulate increased demand and raise crop prices paid to farmers. On a
national level, the need is to provide renewable, safer, more
environmentally sound alternatives to petroleum based industrial
lubricants. The principal investigator believes this research to be of
local, regional and national importance. Furthermore, there is a belief
that there are international possibilities for the use of genetically
modified soybean-based lubricants. Premium quality lubricants made of
genetically modified domestic crops present a potential for use in a
no-food area, i.e. industrial lubricants.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the program was sponsored by non-
Federal funding to develop a soybean based hydraulic oil which was
introduced to market in July of 1997, marketed by AGRI Industries of
West Des Moines, Iowa as BioSOY hydraulic fluid. As of January 1999,
and with the consensus of Agri Industries, the original license was
transferred to West Central Cooperative of Ralston, Iowa, which is in a
better position to market the product. Field testing of two grease
formulations and a dielectric transformer coolant has begun, as well as
development of a two-cycle engine lubricant, and bar and chain oil. A
large volume of technical data has been compiled specific to crop based
oil and lubricants. This program has identified and has begun servicing
a broad array of market development requirements, including
demonstrating specific performance features, expanding awareness, and
supporting government purchase initiatives. In September 1999, two new
soybean-based lubricants were licensed to West Central Coop and are now
commercial products. Those were a chain saw bar oil called SoyLINK and
a fifth wheel grease call SoyTRUK.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Federal funding for this project began with a 1998
appropriation of $200,000. Fiscal years 1999 and 2000 appropriations
are $250,000 each year for a total of $700,000 appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Since 1992, this research program has received cash grants
from the Iowa Soybean Promotion Board, Carver Scientific Research
Initiatives, in addition to several in-kind donations from industry to
develop and coordinate commercialization of what has since become
BioSOY hydraulic oil. Beginning in 1995, the State of Iowa began to
support the program through its Wallace Technology Transfer Foundation.
Beginning in 1996, State funding was provided by legislative
appropriation through the Iowa Department of Economic Development.
Additional funding has been provided by the Iowa Department of
Agriculture and Land Stewardship. In fiscal year 1998 $150,000 was
appropriated through the Iowa Department of Economic Development,
$50,000 from the Iowa Soybean Promotion Board, $25,000 from Iowa
Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, $32,500 from John
Deere, and other awards and service revenues totaling approximately
$60,000. State funding for fiscal year 2000 in amount of $400,000 has
been requested through direct appropriation to the university.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Laboratory and literature studies are being carried out
primarily at the Ag-based Industrial Lubricants Research Program
facility in Waverly, Iowa, with minor portions of activity being
conducted on the campus of the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar
Falls, Iowa and the laboratories of various industrial affiliates
located throughout the State and country. Field tests are being
conducted at Sandia National Laboratories, U.S. Department of Army test
sites, some municipalities, and in industrial equipment located
throughout the nation. A short line Iowa-based railroad and a class I
railroad have been testing soybean-based rail/flange grease with
success and a new lubricant for railroad use is expected to be
commercialized this year.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objectives have been met, in part, with the
optimization, demonstration, and commercialization of the soy-based
hydraulic fluid. Data collection, additive and modification research,
characterization, and supplier development objectives of the first year
are ongoing. The development of the dielectric transformer coolant is
an added objective and has been expedited through to field testing.
Activities to expand public awareness and support government purchase
initiatives have been added to the original objectives. Field testing
of some products is expected to be completed within a year and
additional lubricant applications are anticipated to be targeted for
development and field testing within two years.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The cognizant staff scientist reviews quarterly reports and
has determined that this research is technically sound and directly
addresses the goal of the agency to expand markets for agricultural
materials.
AGRICULTURE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, NY
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under this grant.
Answer. This program encourages the development and utilization of
an agricultural communications network to facilitate and strengthen
agricultural extension, resident education, and research, and domestic
and international marketing of United States commodities and products
through a partnership between eligible institutions and the Department
of Agriculture.
Question. According to the research proposal or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The following needs will be addressed by this program:
--Make optimal use of available resources for agricultural extension,
resident education, and research by sharing resources between
participating institutions;
--Improve the competitive position of United States agriculture in
international markets by disseminating information to
producers, processors, and researchers;
--Train students for careers in agriculture, natural resource
management, environmental science, human sciences, and the food
industries;
--Facilitate interaction among leading agricultural scientists;
--Enhance the ability of United States agriculture to respond to
environmental and food safety concerns; and
--Identify new uses for farm commodities and increase the demand for
United States agricultural products in both domestic and
foreign markets.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this program is to encourage the development
and utilization of an agricultural communications network to facilitate
and strengthen agricultural extension, resident education, and
research, and domestic and international marketing of United States
commodities and products through a partnership between eligible
institutions and the Department of Agriculture. Various educational,
extension, and technology transfer projects have been funded through
the program in fulfillment of this goal.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated, by fiscal year, through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The project began in fiscal year 2000, and is funded for
$425,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided, by fiscal year?
Answer. Prior to fiscal year 2000 it was a one hundred percent
match of funds from non-Federal sources. However, beginning in fiscal
year 2000, it became a special research grant and does not require a
match of funds from non-Federal sources.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Cornell University will award grants competitively
throughout the United States.
Question. When do the principal researchers carrying out this work
anticipate that the work will be completed?
Answer. Projects funded through this grant are two-year projects.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Due to the changing nature of technology and the continuing
need for information in the agricultural community, the objectives of
this project cannot be considered of a terminal nature. Individual
projects being funded address ongoing needs for information
dissemination and technology transfer. As each project is completed the
results are evaluated to determine the success of meeting the program's
objectives.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted?
Answer. The agency evaluates this project each year via a report
from institutions funded. In summary, the following highlight the
programs funded:
--Dollars provided by the Agricultural Telecommunications Program
resulted in the Tri-State Agricultural Distance Delivery
Alliance (TADDA), which includes Washington State University,
Oregon State University, and the University of Idaho. Six
courses reach learners at any location, and nearly fifty more
are in the development stage.
--Texas A&M University collaborated with Utah State University and
the University of Kentucky to develop a nationally recognized
program in international agribusiness marketing. It reaches
food marketing firms, food processors, and other extension
audiences.
--New Mexico State University successfully implemented a multimedia
program called ``Marketing from a Rural Environment,'' which
focuses on place-bound minority learners.
--The University of Arizona developed a comprehensive and dynamic
Internet-based resource on rangeland management.
--Mississippi State University extended the reach of the Web to all
State and county offices.
--Ohio State University developed an internationally recognized
system for quickly targeting and accessing appropriate
horticulture information.
AGRICULTURE WATER USAGE, GEORGIA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Agriculture Water Usage, Georgia grant.
Answer. The project will determine agricultural water use in
Georgia using a 2 percent statistical sample of water sources.
Equipment has been purchased and personnel hired to conduct the
project.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. Water has become a major issue in the southeast. The tri-
state water ``issue'' between Florida, Georgia, and Alabama is seeking
to allocate interstate waters in the primary river basins which begin
in the Atlanta area. These allocation formulas are completed and ready
for use. The salt water intrusion problem associated with coastal
Georgia and South Carolina is also a major issue. Both these problems
suffer from the lack of data on agricultural water use across the
State. This program seeks to develop a monitoring and modeling strategy
to determine how much water is used by agricultural irrigation. The
program is designed to begin with Georgia and then allow expansion into
neighboring States for a better estimate of agricultural water use.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The project has begun by hiring of strategic personnel for
the monitoring program, and development of the equipment and the data
base to be used for obtaining volunteers for the monitoring phase. This
integrated project will involve the development of computer based
models to take a monitoring sample and extrapolate that information for
the entire State.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999.
The appropriation for fiscal year 1999 and 2000 is $300,000 giving a
total of $600,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The State of Georgia through the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division has appropriated
$289,000 for fiscal year 1998-1999 and is expected to appropriate
$250,000 per year for an additional 4 years to help support this
project.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted from the University of Georgia,
College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. The primary
coordination of the program will be centered in the Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Unit at Tifton, Georgia, but the program will
involve input from personnel in Griffin and Athens, and researchers
outside the University of Georgia.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This project, within the overall agricultural water use
program, is anticipated to be completed within the original 5-year time
frame. Since this project is new, objectives have not been completed to
date.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project is new and has not been through an agency
evaluation; however, the investigators prepare quarterly reports for
the State. The procedures used to conduct the project have been peer
reviewed and all publications developed by the project will be peer
reviewed. One product has been produced, ``Irrigation Conservation
Practices for the Southeast U.S.'', a 60-page report.
ALLIANCE FOR FOOD PROTECTION, NE, GA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Alliance for Food Protection grant.
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 appropriation supports the
continuation of a collaborative alliance between the University of
Georgia Center for Food Safety and Quality Enhancement and the
University of Nebraska Department of Food Science and Technology.
Fiscal year 1999 funds supported research at the University of Nebraska
on the detection, identification and characterization of food
allergens, the effects of processing on peanut allergens, and
investigation of the efficacy of using various types of thermal
processes to reduce or destroy the toxicity and mutagenicity of certain
Fusarium metabolites in corn and corn products. Research at the
University of Georgia is directed toward determining the foodborne
significance of Helicobacter pylori, developing a competitive exclusion
bacterial culture to reduce carriage of Camplylobacter jejuni in
poultry, developing methods to differentiate Shiga toxin-producing
E.coli that are pathogenic for humans from nonpathogenic strains, and
developing methods to detect parasites in produce.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes the proposed research
addresses emerging issues in food safety which have national, regional
and local significance. Specifically, research will address bacterial
pathogens that can cause ulcers, cancer and diarrheal illness, toxic
fungal metabolites in corn products, and allergens in foods that cause
serious reactions, including death, in sensitive people. These emerging
issues affect consumers, the food industry, and food producers at all
levels, national, State, and local.
Question. What was the original goal of the research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to: (1) facilitate
the development and modification of food processing and preservation
technologies to enhance the microbiological and chemical safety of
products as they reach the consumer and (2) develop new rapid and
sensitive techniques for detecting pathogens and their toxins as well
as toxic chemicals and allergens in foods. The University of Nebraska
developed assays for detection of peanut, milk, egg, and almond
residues in processed foods, produced high-quality antibodies for these
assays, identified a soybean allergen and two sunflower seed allergens,
discovered clues as to the reason why Brazil nuts cause severe allergic
reactions, discovered that certain types of Fusarium fungi do not
produce mutagenic substances, developed a simple liquid chromatographic
procedure for determination of moniliformin toxin, found that the corn
flake manufacturing process can reduce levels of fungal toxins such as
aflatoxin and fumonisins, and also found that low levels of
carcinogenic aflatoxins in corn grits might be reduced to less than
regulatory actions levels by the corn flake manufacturing process. The
University of Georgia developed methods to culture Helicobacter pylori
and to detect the pathogen in water by advanced genetic-based
techniques. It was found that Arcobacter is easily killed by heat
treatment, exposure of E.coli 0157:H7 to acid increases the bacterium's
tolerance to heat and that the pathogen could survive for many weeks in
refrigerated dry foods, and it was determined that extrusion cooking
can greatly reduce allergens in peanuts.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1996,
and $300,000 was appropriated in each fiscal year 1996 through 2000,
for a total appropriation of $1,500,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were $117,000 State funds and $250,000 industry and miscellaneous in
fiscal year 1996 and were estimated to be a minimum of $111,000 State
funds and $305,000 industry and miscellaneous in fiscal year 1997. In
fiscal year 1998, $70,000 came from State funds and $295,000 from the
food processing industry and miscellaneous funds. The amount of State
funds provided in fiscal year 1999 was $30,000 and $100,000 were
provided by the industry. A minimum of $25,000 State funds and $25,000
industry funds will be provided in fiscal year 2000.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at the University of Georgia
Center for Food Safety and Quality Enhancement in Griffin, Georgia and
at the University of Nebraska Department of Food Science and Technology
in Lincoln, Nebraska.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
Answer. The original objectives have not yet been met. The
researchers anticipate that work will be completed on the original
objectives in 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of the
proposals submitted in support of the project on an annual basis. A
review of the proposal from the University of Nebraska was conducted on
March 29, 1999, and good progress was demonstrated on the objectives
undertaken in 1998. For example, research performed at Nebraska has
shown that extrusion cooking reduces allergenicity of peanut flour. At
the University of Georgia a review was conducted on April 14, 1999, and
good progress was demonstrated on the objectives undertaken in 1998.
Researchers there have developed a medium to enhance the growth of
gastric ulcer-causing bacteria.
ALTERNATIVE CROPS, NORTH DAKOTA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Alternative Crops, North Dakota program.
Answer. The alternative crops project has two main thrusts,
development and utilization of alternative or novel crops and
utilization of traditional crops. The goals of the project are to
diversify income at the farm gate, reduce reliance on monoculture to
help alleviate pest problems, while providing new agricultural and
industrial products to society. Some of the new areas under
investigation include feeding of co-products to livestock; development
of white wheat as an alternative crop, production of certified dried
bean seed, and borage. Previous work continues with oilseed crops such
as crambe, rapeseed and safflower as a renewable supply of industrial
oil, products from food crops for novel new uses in paints, coatings,
food ingredients, and the development of new biochemical and enzymatic
processes to refine oils for industrial uses. The projects funded in
this appropriation are evaluated by a peer-panel chosen by the
Associate Dean of Research at North Dakota State University. The
internal peer review was conducted on the following criteria: (1)
probability and extent of generating value-added agricultural products,
(2) technical and financial feasibility, (3) scientific merit, (4)
innovation, (5) probability of rapid commercialization and (6)
interdisciplinary research efforts.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. Regionally, the temperate areas of the Midwest have the
potential to grow a great number of different crops but are in need of
publicly-sponsored research efforts to reveal the most practical,
efficient, and economical crops and products to pursue. Growers in
surrounding States are currently utilizing the information generated by
research conducted through this grant. The principal researcher
believes that nationally, developing new crops and new markets for
agricultural products is critical for both environmental and economic
reasons. Enhanced biodiversity that comes from the successful
commercialization of new crops aids farmers in dealing with pests and
reducing the dependency upon pesticides. New markets are needed to
provide more economic stability for agricultural products, especially
as Federal price supports are gradually withdrawn.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was and still is to
introduce, evaluate and test new crops which will broaden the economic
diversity of crops grown in North Dakota. The primary emphasis is to
find new crops, new uses and create value added products, such as
crambe, lupin, canola, safflower, cool-season grain legumes, buckwheat,
amaranth, field pea production and utilization, transgenic sugar beets
to produce levan, utilization and processing lupin flower,
confectionery sunflower production, growing and marketing of carrots,
crop-derived red food dye and high quality pectin as food ingredients,
innovative biochemical means of splitting crop oils, and other new uses
of oilseed crops, development of markets for new crops as livestock and
fish feeds. These efforts have forged a strong link with the private
sector, and successfully spawned several crops and products into
profitable private sector businesses
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Appropriations by fiscal year are as follows: 1990,
$494,000; 1991, $497,000; 1992 and 1993, $700,000 per year; 1994,
$658,000; 1995, $592,000; and in 1996 through 2000, $550,000 per year.
A total of $6,391,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. In fiscal year 1991, $10,170 was provided by State
appropriations. In fiscal year 1992, $29,158, was also provided by
State appropriations and self-generated funds. In fiscal year
1993,$30,084, was provided by State appropriations. In fiscal year
1994, $161,628 was provided by State funds, $3,189 provided by industry
and $9,020 provided by other sources, totaling $173,837. In fiscal year
1995, $370,618 was provided by State appropriations, $1,496 provided by
self-generated funds, $1,581 provided by industry and $5,970 was
provided in other non-Federal funds, totaling $379,665 for fiscal year
95. In fiscal year 1996 $285,042 was provided by State appropriation,
$4742 provided by industry, $14,247 provided from other non-Federal
funds totaling $304,031 for 1996. In fiscal year 1997, $462,012 was
provided by State appropriations, $8,080 was provided by self-generated
funds, $8,217 was provided by industry and $103,063 was provided from
other non-Federal funds totaling $581,372 for fiscal year 1997. In
fiscal year 1999, $984,251 was provided through State appropriations,
$40,198 provided through self-generated funds, $13,010 provided by
industry and $87,942 from other non-Federal sources.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work is conducted on the campus of North Dakota State
University and at six different research extension centers in North
Dakota. Work is also done in eastern Montana.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Fiscal year 2000 is the eleventh year of activity under
this grant. The primary emphasis has been to find new crops with non-
food uses and create value added products. The original objectives have
been met, and continue to expand.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The cognizant staff scientist annually reviews the project
and has determined that the research is conducted in accordance with
the mission of this agency to expand agricultural markets.
ALTERNATIVE CROPS FOR ARID LANDS, TEXAS
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Alternative Crops for Arid Lands, Texas grant.
Answer. This grant is to develop the two most abundant plants in
southwestern United States, i.e. mesquite and cactus, into commercial
crops through a combination of applied research and market development.
In Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California these plants occupy 72
million acres. This grant is peer reviewed internally and external
reviewers include a private sector cactus breeder, the Texas
Agricultural Extension Service and a specialist in wood products
marketing.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this goal?
Answer. The semi-arid regions of the United States that border with
Mexico in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California have some of the
highest unemployment rates, lowest economic returns per acre, and
lowest incomes in the United States. The two most abundant plant
species in this region are prickly pear cactus and mesquite. By working
with Mexican researchers, this grant will help to stabilize the
economic situation of rural poor in Mexico and the United States. There
are few crops capable of being grown sustainably in these regions. Due
to the nitrogen fixing capability, and thus soil improving properties,
of mesquite and high water use efficiency of cactus, these plants
contribute to sustainable agriculture, and will diversify southwestern
agriculture. This research group is the only center in the United
States developing these plants as crops.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal is to dramatically improve the economic returns,
and year-to-year economic stability in the southwestern United States
from arid and semi-arid lands. For cactus, the goal has been to provide
improved varieties that can be harvested and processed into food and
forage. A collection of more than 130 varieties of cacti serves as a
resource for full scale breeding program. Chromosome analysis began in
fiscal year 1999 to improve breeding success. One hundred additional
hybridizations are being tested. Especially significant is the start of
a production trial for the top eight fruit and top two nopalito
selections. The size of the production trial will be large enough to
provide planting stock in quantities suitable to many growers. For
mesquite, the goal is to increase its value as a result of better tree
form. A genetic screening trial has been initiated to evaluate the
growth and form of 20 native Texas mesquite seed sources. This research
seeks to identify superior genetic material for further breeding and to
maintain some of these trees as seed producers for further
silvicultural research. Mesquite accomplishments include demonstrations
of mesquite products at the World Trade Fair in Chicago, presentations
to architects in all major cities in Texas, and providing research
information that helped a new manufacturing plant license their
mesquite products. Further economic development depends on good
relations and cooperation of landowners willing to sell mesquite trees
from their property. In return, landowners need relevant information to
formulate plans for a sustainable harvest that can incorporate
considerations for grazing, wildlife, and soil improvement.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $94,000. For fiscal
years 1995 through 1997 the appropriation was $85,000 per year and for
fiscal years 1999 and 2000 is $100,000 per year. A total of $549,000
has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. In fiscal year 1994, $43,215 was provided by the Texas
legislature.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The work is being conducted by Texas A&M University,
Kingsville, Texas.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. For cactus, the original objective of the project was to
provide improved varieties of cactus for fruit and napolitos marketing.
The fiscal year 1999 production trial represents a partial completion
of the original objective by examining the yield and financial benefits
of larger scale cactus cultivation. Researchers anticipate that
improved varieties should be available in two to four years. Currently,
a small Texas and California cactus industry exists and more economic
growth can be achieved with the introduction of new varieties. For
mesquite, the objective to improve the economic return largely has been
met, since markets for mesquite lumber, flooring, furniture, and
barbecue work products continue to improve. However, other related
objectives such as growth and form, genetic screening and breeding will
take longer to complete. Initial data collection for growth and form
will begin in two years.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Evaluation of this project is conducted annually based on
the annual progress report and discussions with the principal
investigator, as appropriate. The review is conducted by the cognizant
staff scientist who has determined that this research is in accordance
with the mission of the agency.
ALTERNATIVE SALMON PRODUCTS PROGRAM, ALASKA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Alternative Salmon Products grant.
Answer. The initial project funded under this program is the
Pinbone Removal Machine Project. This project was aimed at developing a
high capacity commercial pin-bone removal machine to take pinbones out
of salmon fillets. The machine promises to lower production costs for
making boneless salmon fillets and provide new products like frozen
skinless boneless salmon fillet portions that will open new markets for
salmon fillet in shatter packs. Subsequent to initial funds provided in
fiscal year 1998, additional appropriations to the Alternative Salmon
Product Program have allowed other projects to be supported. These
include the Marketing Competition Project and the Salmon Quality
Project.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The Alaska salmon industry has lost considerable market
share worldwide to farmed salmon production. In 1994, the farmed salmon
market share surpassed Alaska's market share of the world's salmon
supply and has continued to climb every year since. In 1997, Norwegian
farmed salmon production exceeded Alaska wild stock harvests. Also in
1997, Chilean coho salmon exports to Japan exceeded North American
sockeye salmon exports to Japan. Japan has traditionally been Alaska's
strongest and most lucrative export market. The current situation is an
example of foreign competition undermining a traditional American
industry. Though the product is harvested in Alaska, the benefits of
this research are shared with fishermen residents in Washington State,
Oregon, California and throughout the nation. There is still room for
optimism in that worldwide salmon consumption is up and new markets for
high quality affordable salmon exist.
Question. What was the original goal of the research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The broad research goal of the Alternative Salmon Product
Program is the development of market-desired salmon products using
wild-caught salmon. In 1998 and continuing, researchers involved in the
Pinbone Removal Machine Project are addressing the problem of deboning
wild-caught fish in appropriate volumes, so that they can be marketed
as frozen skinless boneless fillet portions rather than simply as H&G
frozen fish or canned salmon. New products such as this would allow
Alaskan wild caught salmon to compete more effectively with pen-reared
salmon. The researchers have designed, built and tested 4 prototype
pinbone removal machines, making sequential improvements in design as
new problems surfaced. Their latest iteration will be tested in
processing plants during the 2000 salmon season.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The initial funding of the Alternative Salmon Product
Program was $400,000 in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and in fiscal year
2000 it is $552,500. A total of $1,352,500 has been appropriated.
The fiscal year 1999 appropriations have gone to two other
projects, both under the Alternative Salmon Product Program. These are
the Marketing Competition Project and the Salmon Quality Project.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Industry will contribute approximately $50,000, based on an
estimated cost of $50,000 per plant, for commercial testing of the beta
prototypes.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work on the Pinbone removal Machine Project has been
and will continue to be conducted at both the University of Alaska
Fairbanks--Fishery Industrial Technology Center in Kodiak, Alaska and
at the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, in
Fairbanks, Alaska.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
Answer. The Pinbone Machine Project under the Alternative Salmon
Product Program, including original and related objectives, will be
completed with fiscal year 2000 funding. Other projects, like the
Alternative Salmon Management Program will take about five years to
complete their goals.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The proposal received in support of the fiscal year 1999
appropriation was reviewed for merit on August 18, 1999. At that time,
the agency science specialist determined that the projects addressed
needs and interests of the Alaskan salmon industry.
ANIMAL SCIENCE FOOD SAFETY CONSORTIUM
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the animal science food safety consortium program.
Answer. The Food Safety Consortium is focused on accomplishing six
objectives: (1) to develop techniques for rapid detection of infectious
agents and toxins in meat and poultry; (2) to develop a statistical
approach for evaluating potential health risks; (3) to identify
effective intervention points to control microbiological or chemical
hazards; (4) to develop monitoring methodologies to detect these
hazards in the distribution chain; (5) to develop technologies to
complement the development of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Point programs by USDA; and (6) to estimate costs and benefits
associated with intervention alternatives.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The Consortium's participation in technology transfer to
health departments and trade associations are helping on a regional and
local level to educate consumers and food handlers on safe handling
procedures. Scientific-based testing that is being developed will help
provide food that will be more readily accepted in international
markets and increase exports and sustainable rural economies at home.
On a regional and local level, each of the institutions are involved in
Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point program training for industry
and are holding seminars for industry to discuss food safety research
findings. In addition, the University of Arkansas is teaching food safe
programs to children in State elementary schools.
Question. What was the original goal of this research, and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal was to bring together research and
expertise of institutions in three States in order to best address the
areas of poultry, beef, and pork meat production from the farm to the
consumer's table. In coordination with each other, they seek to develop
detection, monitoring, and prevention techniques to control or prevent
the presence of infectious agents and chemical toxins in the food
supply. Each year advisory and technical committees provide guidance
and expertise in research planning.
In 1999, research at the University of Arkansas emphasized
detection and control of pathogens from pre- through post-harvest raw
and thermal processing, molecular surveillance of pathogens, predictive
microbial modeling and risk assessment, a variety of rapid detection
methods and education and outreach programs for children in grades K-12
and for food processors. At Iowa State University, research
concentrated on swine production, irradiation, methodology and risk
assessment. Work performed at Kansas State University emphasized
intervention strategies, methods development, risk assessment and
technology/information transfer.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1989, $1,400,000; fiscal year 1990, $1,678,000;
fiscal year 1991, $1,845,000; fiscal years 1992-11993, $1,942,000;
fiscal year 1994, $1,825,000; fiscal years 1995-1996, $1,743,000 each
year; fiscal year 1997, $1,690,000; fiscal years 1998-1999, $1,521,000
each year; and fiscal year 2000, $1,521,000. A total of $20,371,000 has
been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The non-Federal funds are provided primarily by State and
private organizations. These funds provided for this grant are as
follows: $1,611,947 in 1991; $1,639,050 in 1992; $1,726,153 in 1993;
$2,304,223 in 1994; $2,075,145 in 1995; $2,796,097 in 1996; $2,600,545
in 1997; $1,850,899 in 1998; $3,421,866 in 1999. Thus, from 1991
through 1999 a total of $20,025,934 in non-Federal funds was provided.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at Iowa State University,
Kansas State University, and University of Arkansas at Fayetteville,
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences at Little Rock, and
Arkansas Children's Hospital.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
Answer. The research projects from the Consortium continue to
evolve and build on the original objectives first set out in 1989.
Additional objectives are revised on an annual basis to enhance the
original six objectives. Recently, the Consortium has participated in
research projects that have made significant contributions to the
establishment of scientific parameters used in Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Point programs. The principal investigators have
developed patented tests that have significantly reduced the time
necessary to detect pathogens in the processing plants.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. There has never been a formal evaluation of the Food Safety
Consortium but instead, an annual conference is organized at which a
designated representative from CSREES attends. Along with other invited
agency representatives such as FSIS, ARS, and ERS, CSREES participates
in a steering committee meeting which critiques projects and discusses
research priorities. CSREES representatives were considered part of the
Technical Advisory Committee as well as members of the Food Safety
Consortium Steering Committee and fully participated in meetings and
conference calls. Peer reviews are conducted by expert scientists who
are not members of the Consortium and determine those projects selected
for funding.
APPLE FIRE BLIGHT, MICHIGAN AND NEW YORK
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Michigan and New York, Apple Fire Blight grant.
Answer. This project studies fire blight in apple trees, which is a
bacterial disease that can kill spurs, branches, and whole trees. The
management of this disease is difficult because only one antibiotic
treatment is available. The objectives of this research are to develop
fire blight resistance varieties, evaluate biological and chemical
control methodologies for disease management, and develop an education
and extension component for disease management.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Fire blight is a destructive disease of apple trees that
can kill the trees. This disease is caused by bacteria and affects
apple trees in all apple growing areas of the nation. In the northeast,
the disease is more prevalent because of humid weather conditions.
Because there are significant needs for research in high priority
national interest topics such as improved pest management systems,
funds are not proposed in fiscal year 2001 to continue this Special
Research Grant. At the discretion of the State, Hatch Act or other
funding could be use to support this research.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goals of this research are to develop transgenic apple
trees through various molecular technologies, to develop new approaches
to antibiotic treatments of disease, to develop an early screening
technique for tree sensitivity to the disease, to evaluate biological
and cultural controls and to develop and improve education and
extension components of disease management. The last objective involves
using disease prediction models.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Fiscal year 1977 was the first year funds were appropriated
for this grant at $325,000. For fiscal year 1998-2000, $500,000 was
appropriated per year. A total of $1,825,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What are the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds provided for 1997 were $40,127 for
Michigan and $104,166 for New York State. In 1998 the State of Michigan
appropriated $25,071 and the Michigan Apple Research Committee provided
$15,000 for a total of $40,071 from Michigan. New York provided State
appropriated funds of $104,166 for 1998. The State appropriated funds
provided for 1999 were $49,771 for Michigan and $106,689 for New York.
The State appropriated funds provided for 2000 are $46,178 for Michigan
and $43,200 for New York.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at Michigan State University
and Cornell University, New York Experiment Station.
Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated date of completion for the original
objectives was 2000. The objectives have not been met. It is estimated
by the researchers that three to five years is needed to complete this
project.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The last merit review of this project was in January, 1999.
A site visit was made to Michigan State University in March 1999 and to
Cornell University, Geneva and Ithaca, New York in April 1999. Both
principal investigators were visited as well as the field sites. In
summary, in surveys of established apple orchard and new planting in
New York there were losses of up to 255 of trees filled by fire blight
infections of rootstocks. Several new materials for control of fire
blight on susceptible varieties gave promising results in field trails.
Improved techniques to transfer genes into apple and to obtain
flowering on the trasgenci trees have been developed so that transgenic
fruits can be examined within two years. In research in Michigan a
total of 50 phage isolated from fire blight were characterized with the
potential of using these to control the disease. A new plant growth
regulator that controls vegetative growth in apple appeared to make
trees less susceptible to fire blight. A detailed study of the role of
the hrpA gene in fire blight virulence has been completed with a better
understanding of its involvement in virulence in the disease.
AQUACULTURE, LOUISIANA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Aquaculture, Louisiana grant.
Answer. The agency requested that the university submit a grant
proposal for fiscal year 2000 that has not been received to date.
Research under this program has addressed critical problems in the
commercial aquaculture industry including crawfish, catfish, and other
emerging species. The university has completed studies in the area of
fish nutrition, fish health, fish genetics, production management
strategies, alternative species, seafood processing, product quality,
and broodstock development.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal investigator indicates that information
generated from the funded research will have broad application for
local, regional, and national aquaculture industries. Specific projects
have addressed priorities identified in the crawfish industry including
water quality management, harvesting strategies, and nutrition for the
production of large crawfish and development of value-added crawfish
products. Problems addressed in the channel catfish industry include
off-flavor, viral and bacterial diseases, gene mapping, nutrition, and
an improved production system technology. Additionally, genetic studies
on both hybrid-striped bass and tilapia are currently underway.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the research was to provide science-
based information through a basic and applied research base that
specifically addressed the needs of the aquaculture industry in
Louisiana and the southern region. The overall goals of the research
are to improve production efficiency of important aquaculture species
through enhancement of nutrient utilization, improvements in genetics,
and development of new and alternative production management systems;
to develop new technologies for preventing and treating prevalent
diseases of important aquacultural species; and to develop new food
products and new techniques and processes that improve aquacultural-
food product quality. Research has led to improved channel catfish and
hybrid striped bass feed formulations, production of new channel
catfish vaccines, improved extraction and detection methods for off-
flavor compounds, production of genetically-improved channel catfish,
procedures for the production of gene maps for channel catfish,
improved harvesting and production strategies for crawfish, and
improved processing technologies for crawfish and other aquaculture
products. Research continues to be directed at important opportunities
to enhance production efficiency and commercial viability of
sustainable aquaculture systems in Louisiana and the southern region.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Research to be conducted under this program continue as
initiated under the Aquaculture General program in fiscal years 1988
through 1991. The work supported by this program began in fiscal year
1992 and the appropriation for fiscal years 1992-1993 was $390,000 per
year, $367,000 in fiscal year 1994, and $330,000 each year in fiscal
years 1995-2000, for a total of $3,127,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The university estimates that non-Federal funding for this
program is as follows: in fiscal year 1991, $310,051; in fiscal year
1992, $266,857; in fiscal year 1993, $249,320; in fiscal year 1994,
$188,816; in fiscal year 1995, $159,810; in fiscal year 1996, $150,104;
in fiscal year 1997, $158,808; and in fiscal years 1998 and 1999,
$110,101. The primary source of this funding was from State sources and
self-generated funds with minor contributions from industry and other
non-Federal sources.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at Louisiana State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original specific objectives were to be completed in
1990. These specific research objectives have been met, however,
research required for long-term growth of the aquaculture industry in
Louisiana and the southern region continues to be addressed. The
specific research outlined in the current proposal will be completed in
fiscal year 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Grants are awarded to scientists within the university on a
competitive peer-review basis. The entire proposal is reviewed by
agency Program Managers on an annual basis. The university is required
to provide an accomplishment report each year when the new grant
proposal is submitted to the agency for funding. In addition, the
Program Manager conducted site visits in 1996 and 1997 to meet with the
scientists involved in the project and review the progress of the
research. The 1999 review concluded that the proposed research is
addressing important research needs of the aquaculture industry
throughout the southern region, that the facilities are excellent, that
the principal investigators are well-qualified, that the experimental
design is sound, that the proposed research builds upon research
previously funded through this program, and that the progress on
previous research funded under this program is well documented.
Research results from this program have had a significant impact on the
aquaculture industry in Louisiana and the region.
AQUACULTURE RESEARCH, STONEVILLE, MISSISSIPPI
Question. Please provide a description of the research funded under
the Aquaculture Research Stoneville, Mississippi grant.
Answer. The agency has requested that the university submit a grant
proposal that has yet to be received. Past projects funded by this
grant have addressed critical problems in the farm-raised channel
catfish industry including practical feeding and nutrition strategies
and acoustical in-pond monitoring technologies.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal investigator indicates that results from this
project will continue to have a significant impact on the
competitiveness of a significant segment of the domestic aquaculture
industry, namely channel catfish. The farmed-raised channel catfish
industry accounts for over 70 percent of total domestic aquaculture
production. Research funded by this program is directed towards
improving feeds and feeding strategies and acoustical monitoring and
inventory of catfish in pond production systems. These findings will
have long-term impacts on the competitiveness of the farm-raised
channel catfish industries in several southern States.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to address the
research needs of the farm-raised channel catfish industry in the areas
of water quality and nutrition. Results from this research has led to
improved water quality management practices in commercial catfish ponds
and improved diet formulation and feeding strategies that have been
widely adopted by the industry. Research findings from this program
have had a direct impact on reducing the cost of catfish feed without
reducing performance and productivity. Additionally, sonar hardware and
software technologies are being developed and evaluated for use in
stock assessment of channel catfish ponds.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal years 1980-81, $150,000 per year; fiscal year 1982,
$240,000; fiscal year 1983-84, $270,000 per year; fiscal year 1985,
$420,000; fiscal years 1986-87, $400,000 per year; fiscal year 1988,
$500,000; fiscal year 1989, $588,000; fiscal year 1990, $581,000;
fiscal year 1991, $600,000; fiscal years 1992-1993, $700,000 per year;
fiscal year 1994, $658,000; fiscal years 1995-1997, $592,000 each year,
$642,000 in fiscal year 1998, and $592,000 per year in fiscal years
1999 and 2000. A total of $10,229,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The university estimates a total of $2,101,508 in non-
Federal funding to support this research for fiscal years 1991-1994;
$1,128,451 in fiscal year 1995; $601,473 in fiscal year 1996; $463,990
in fiscal year 1997, $464,266 in year 1998, and approximately $740,000
in fiscal year 1999. Non-Federal funding is primarily provided by State
funds. Additional funding is also provided from product sales, industry
contributions, and other miscellaneous sources.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The grants have been awarded to the Mississippi State
University Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. All nutrition
research is conducted at the Delta Branch Experiment Station,
Stoneville, Mississippi. The acoustical research is conducted in
cooperation with the National Center for Physical Acoustics at the
University of Mississippi.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the specific original
research objectives was 1984. The original objectives have been met,
however, projects funded by subsequent grants continue to address the
research needs of the domestic channel catfish industry as problems
arise. The specific research outlined in the current proposal will be
completed in 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency's Program Managers and Program Specialist
evaluate the progress of this project on an annual basis. The
university is required to provide an accomplishment report when the new
proposal is submitted to the agency for funding. Proposed new projects
undergo internal review by the Mississippi State University
Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station and are reviewed
externally by agency personnel consistent with United States Department
of Agriculture guidelines. The Program Manager conducted a site visit
in 1999. The 1998 review indicated that the research addresses key
problems faced by the farm-raised channel catfish industry. Significant
progress has been reported on past research and the experimental and
scientific design of the new project are sound. Scientists involved in
the project are leading authorities in this area of research and
linkages between the researchers and the catfish industry has lead to
accelerated adoption of research findings. Adoption of improved feeds
and feeding strategies developed through this program by the catfish
industry has led to improved production efficiency in commercial
catfish operations. The agency is planning a site visit in fiscal year
2000.
AQUACULTURE, NORTH CAROLINA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Aquaculture, North Carolina grant.
Answer. The agency has requested that the university submit a grant
proposal that has yet to be received. The researchers indicate that the
research will focus on improving husbandry methodologies for striped
bass and rainbow trout.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal investigator indicates that the project will
address specific research needs of the domestic trout and hybrid
striped bass industries. Studies addressing vaccine administration and
disease resistance, broodstock maintenance, and feeding strategies will
result in improved culture technologies for these species in the United
States.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the project was targeted at resolving
specific, industry-recognized impediments to aquaculture efficiency,
profitability, and growth. The specific objectives include: improved
vaccine administration methods for rainbow trout; improved broodstock
maintenance methodologies for striped bass; and reduction of
environmental impacts by improving system technologies and feeding
strategies in hybrid striped bass production ponds.
Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1997
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1997 was $150,000. The project
was not funded in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. The current fiscal year
2000 appropriation is $255,000. The total amount appropriated is
$405,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The university reports a total of $94,000 of non-Federal
funding to support research carried under this program for fiscal year
1997. The primary source of the non-Federal funding was from State
sources.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at North Carolina State
University and their aquaculture research field station.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This project was initiated in fiscal year 1997 and was
funded for one year. Funding was not appropriated in fiscal years 1998
and 1999.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency will conduct the initial review of this proposal
when it is submitted to the agency for funding. The proposal will be
externally peer reviewed as part of the agency's evaluation.
AQUACULTURE, VIRGINIA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Aquaculture, Virginia grant.
Answer. The agency requested that the university submit a grant
proposal that has yet to be received. The proposed research will
document and develop fish production culture methodologies and analyze
economic management and marketing strategies for a recirculating
aquaculture system-based industry.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The investigators indicate that there is a need to develop
a highly competitive, sustainable aquaculture industry predicated upon
land-based recirculating-water system technologies in order to meet
consumer demand for cultivated aquatic foods that are of high quality,
safe, competitively priced, nutritious, and are produced in an
environmentally responsible manner. Research refining culture system
technologies have the potential of significantly enhancing domestic
aquaculture production.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research is to identify
commercially-viable aquaculture species utilizing recirculating
aquaculture system technology, verifying production and culture
management protocols utilizing this technology, analyze production
budgets providing information upon which to build business plans,
investigate marketing development strategies, and prepare scientific,
technical, and popular publications to disseminate the results of this
research. Research was initiated in fiscal year 1999. Initial
production trials are underway, but have not yet been completed.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. This was a new research initiative in fiscal year 1999.
$100,000 per year was appropriated for fiscal years 1999 and 2000. The
total appropriation for this grant is $200,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The university estimates a minimum of $90,000 of non-
Federal funding in fiscal year 1999 and $34,853 in fiscal year 2000
coming primarily from State sources.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research will be conducted through the Virginia
Agricultural Experiment Station, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, Blacksburg, Virginia and in collaboration with
private aquaculture firms in Virginia.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This proposal seeks funding for year two of a proposed
three year project. The anticipated completion date for the fiscal year
2000 component of the project is July 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency evaluates the progress of this project on an
annual basis. The university is required to submit an accomplishment
report each year when the new proposal is submitted to the agency for
funding. The objectives described in the proposal are relevant to
State, regional, and national goals and address an important
opportunity within the regional aquaculture industry. The specific
objectives, methodology, and experimental design are clearly presented
and experimentally sound. Personnel and facilities are appropriate for
the stated objectives and objectives should be attained within
budgetary and time constraints. Appropriate literature review and
justifications for research were provided.
AQUACULTURE PRODUCT AND MARKETING DEVELOPMENT, W.V.
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Aquaculture Product and Marketing Development,
West Virginia.
Answer. The agency requested that the university submit a grant
proposal that has yet to be received. The research program is aimed at
developing a viable and competitive aquaculture industry in West
Virginia and the Appalachian region. The specific objectives of the
project address State and regional needs by improving the short-term
viability and long-term sustainability of aquaculture production and
processing firms in West Virginia and similar areas of Appalachia.
Specific research strategies include the development of marketing
strategies for trout producers and processors, increasing the economic
efficiency and profitability of trout-based enterprises, improving the
consistency and quality of fresh trout fillets and value-added smoked
trout products, and to implement a technology transfer component to
disseminate information generated by this project to the aquaculture
industry in Appalachia.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The researchers indicate that there is a regional and
national need to evaluate marketing and product development for small
scale aquaculture systems in rural communities. In addition, there is a
need to improve the efficiency and sustainability of these systems.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The research proposes to develop sound marketing strategies
for aquaculture products, improve the economic efficiency of
aquaculture production systems, and improve the quality and variety of
aquaculture products in West Virginia and the Appalachian region.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. A grant has been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1998, $600,000 and $750,000 for each of fiscal
years 1999 and 2000. A total of $2,100,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The university indicated that there were no non-Federal
funds provided in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for this project.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being conducted at the University of West
Virginia in Morgantown and at off campus sites with a variety of
potential cooperators.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The project was initiated in fiscal year 1998. Research
addressing the original objectives is currently underway and the
anticipated completion date for these objectives is fiscal year 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency conducted an external and internal peer review
of the original proposal. The proposal was peer reviewed by 10 external
reviewers and the agency's National Program Leaders for Aquaculture,
and the Aquaculture Program Specialist. Although the proposal was aimed
at important issues facing the aquaculture industry in the region, a
number of significant concerns were expressed by both external and
agency reviewers. These concerns with recommendations were presented to
the university and a revised fiscal year 1998 proposal was submitted
and approved. The Agricultural Experiment Station requested that a
planning review be held to provide recommendations to the University to
assist in developing and refining the direction and focus of the
aquaculture program at West Virginia University. An external planning
review was held in August, 1999, facilitated by the National Program
Leaders and Program Specialist. The agency and West Virginia University
agreed that additional time would be needed to develop a complete,
detailed proposal for the fiscal year 1999 funding. West Virginia
University requested, in their fiscal year 1999 proposal submission,
that the funds be obligated but restricted until a detailed proposal
was submitted and approved by the agency. The agency is currently
awaiting receipt of the revised fiscal year 1999 proposal.
BABCOCK INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL DAIRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Babcock Institute grant.
Answer. The Babcock Institute for International Dairy Research and
Development was established with participation of the University of
Wisconsin-Madison College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, School of
Veterinary Medicine and the Cooperative Extension Division. The
objective of the Babcock Institute is to link the U.S. dairy industry
with the dairy industry in the rest of the world through degree
training, continuing education, technology transfer, adaptive research,
scientific collaboration and market analysis.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes the need is to strengthen
dairy industries around the world, to enhance international commercial
and scientific collaborative opportunities for the U.S. dairy industry,
and to draw upon global perspectives to build insight into the
strategic planning of the U.S. dairy industry.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the Institute remains the linkage of the U.S.
dairy industry with the rest of the world through training, continuing
education and outreach, technology transfer, adaptive research,
scientific collaboration and market analysis. Initial efforts were
focused on planning and staffing. An initial activity was, and
continues to be, the development of multi language extension materials
about basic management techniques essential to optimize performance of
U.S. dairy cattle overseas. This activity has grown to include manuals
on Breeding and Genetics, Lactation and Milking, and Basic Dairy Farm
Financial Management published in English, Spanish, French, Russian,
and Chinese. Research on potential implications of NAFTA and GATT on
the U.S. dairy industry was completed. A technical workshop on dairy
grazing in New Zealand and the Midwest was organized and held in
Madison during the fall of 1993. A technical workshop on Nutrient
Management, Manure and the Dairy Industry: European Perspectives and
Wisconsin's Challenges was held in Madison, Wisconsin during September
1994. A round table was held in January 1995 addressing ``World Dairy
Markets in the Post-GATT Era.'' Sponsored the Great Lakes Dairy Sheep
Symposium in 1995 and 1996. Created a World Wide Web site in 1996 for
distribution of Babcock Institute technical dairy fact sheets in four
languages. The first International Dairy Short Course for a group of
producers and technicians from Argentina has been organized on the
University of Wisconsin Campus. Scientists' are being supported in
collaborative research with New Zealand primarily to gain a better
understanding of grazing systems as related to dairy management. An
analysis of the impact of changes in European dairy policies has been
completed. The Institute sponsored a Minnesota-Wisconsin Dairy Policy
Conference to provide insights into current agricultural programs and
policy issues in the dairy sector of the U.S. economy.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal years' 1992 and 1993, $75,000 per year; fiscal year
1994, $250,000; and fiscal years' 1995-1998, $312,000 per year; fiscal
year 1999, $400,000; and fiscal year 2000, $510,000. A total of
$2,648,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. During fiscal year 1992, $13,145 of State funds were used
to support this program and $19,745 of State funds in fiscal year 1993
for a total of $32,890 during the first two years of this research.
Information is not available for fiscal years 1994-1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at the University of Wisconsin-
Madison College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The Babcock Institute's overarching mission has been to
link the U.S. dairy industry and its trade potential with overseas
dairy industries and markets. The original objectives of this project
have remained consistent over the years. However, each year specific
objectives were proposed to further the mission of the Institute and to
build on previous accomplishments. The Institute has accomplished
specific objectives each year in a timely manner. The Babcock Institute
has remained true to its original objective of linking Wisconsin and
the U.S. to dairy industries around the world. This objective remains
increasingly important with continued development of international
markets for dairy products and technologies. The University researchers
anticipate that work currently in progress will be completed by
September 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The Babcock Institute undergoes two independent review
processes each year. The first is done by a committee of university and
industry representatives who review the annual research proposal and
amend it prior to submission to the agency. The annual proposal is
reviewed by agency technical staff prior to approval for fund release.
In addition, the institute was included in a comprehensive review of
the programs of the Department of Dairy Science at the University of
Wisconsin in May 1995. The agency project officer has conducted two on
site reviews of the institute since its formation in 1992. The most
recent review has found that the approach proposed by the researchers
is appropriate and that the researchers are well qualified to perform
the objectives as stated. The objectives of the proposal are within the
mission of the United States Department of Agriculture and the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.
BIODIESEL RESEARCH, MISSOURI
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the biodiesel research grant.
Answer. Research on biodiesel involves examining the feasibility of
producing biodiesel and other higher value products from oilseed crops
including soybeans, canola, sunflower and industrial rapeseed. The
project is also evaluating local processing plants whereby farmers
could produce crops, process the crops locally and use the fuel and
high protein feed coproducts on their farms or locally. This project
undergoes merit review at the College of Agriculture.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The initial work is being conducted in Missouri. The
results may provide the agricultural community with alternative crops
and more diverse markets, additional marketable products and a locally
grown source of fuel. This will result in increased investment in local
communities, additional jobs, and increased value added in the farm and
rural community sectors.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The ultimate goal of this project was to conduct research
and development in an effort to help commercialize biodiesel as an
important alternative fuel that could be used in fleets throughout the
country. This would help to attain the objectives of the comprehensive
Energy Policy Act of 1992, also known as EPACT. Success would increase
the use of agricultural products as well as diversifying product
markets, both of which would be beneficial to American farmers. This is
especially important during periods of large commodity surpluses and
extremely depressed prices such as we are currently experiencing. An
important part of the on-going research has been to identify potential
markets where biodiesel can compete on an economic basis with other
alternative fuels. An important part of the research this past year is
to compare the cost of using a biodiesel blend, 20 percent biodiesel/80
percent petroleum diesel, as an alternative fuel in the St. Louis
Metropolitan Fleet with other alternative fuels. Results indicate that
the incremental cost of biodiesel over conventional diesel fuel is
$1,013 per EPACT credit. The incremental cost of the other options
investigated was $4,000 for compressed natural gas and $3,281 for E-85
per credit. Thus, from an incremental cost perspective, biodiesel is
the least cost option for helping the City of St. Louis meet the clean
air requirements of Energy Policy Act.
Question. How long has this work been underway, and how much has
been appropriated, by fiscal year, through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work for this program began in fiscal 1993, and the
appropriation for that year was $50,000. The appropriation for fiscal
year 1994 was $141,000; and for fiscal years 1995-2000, $152,000
annually. A total of $1,103,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The source of non-Federal funds is State appropriated
funds. The level in 1994 was $7,310. The funding level for 1995 was
$74,854. Cost sharing by the University of Missouri each year for
fiscal year 96 and fiscal year 97 was $80,000 and $86,000 respectively.
Total cost sharing for the project by the University of Missouri has
been $242,224. Matching funding for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 was
$77,431 and $79,730. Total matching for the entire period has been
$399,385. Additionally, some work funded by this grant has been
conducted in cooperation with the National Biodiesel Board, plus the
Missouri Soybean Merchandising Council.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work is being carried out at the University of
Missouri-Columbia.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The principal investigator believes that the work will be
completed at the end of fiscal year 2000. Research and development
completed by the end of that period will provide private industry with
the information needed to successfully commercialize biodiesel.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The evaluation of using biodiesel as a complete fuel and in
a blend has been met. This project is evaluated on an annual basis
based on the annual progress report, discussions with the principal
investigator as appropriate, and agency participation in collaborative
activities related to this project. The review is conducted by the
cognizant staff scientist and it has been determined that the research
is performed in accordance with the mission of this agency.
BLOCKING ANHYDROUS METHAMPHETAMINE PRODUCTION IOWA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the Blocking Anhydrous Methamphetamine Production
Grant, Iowa.
Answer. The Agency has requested Iowa State University to submit a
grant proposal that has not yet been received. This is a new special
grant for which there have been no previous awards.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher has indicated that anhydrous
ammonia, a commonly used agricultural fertilizer, can be used as an
ingredient for making methamphetamine, an illegal and highly addictive
drug which has posed a drug enforcement problem for Iowa and other
Midwestern States in recent years. At the discretion of the State,
Hatch Act or other formula funding could be used to support this
research. The National Research Initiative is another possible funding
source for this project.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the research is to discover a chemical
procedure that will render anhydrous ammonia ineffective in producing
methamphetamine while keeping the anhydrous ammonia cost-efficient and
effective as a fertilizer. Preliminary results suggest that certain
metal salts in catalytic amounts can be effective at inactivating the
drug-producing reaction.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000 ?
Answer. Preliminary work funded by the State has been underway for
approximately five months. This is a new special grant and $212,500 has
been appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. State funds in an amount less than $5,000 were used to get
the project started in fiscal year 1999. The State plans to cost-share
the salaries of the principal investigator and a faculty collaborator
in the amounts of $20,000 and $25,000 per year, respectively.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being conducted in the Chemistry Department
at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The principal investigator anticipates completing the
original objectives of the project in two or three years. Additional or
related objectives have not been specifically identified at this time.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. As a new special grant for which a proposal has not yet
been received, this project has not yet been evaluated. A merit review
panel will be convened to evaluate the project upon receipt of a
proposal for fiscal year 2000.
BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS, MICHIGAN
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been conducted under the Bovine Tuberculosis, Michigan grant.
Answer. The agency has requested the university to submit a grant
proposal that has not yet been received.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for the
research?
Answer. The need for this research relates to the critical problem
of bovine tuberculosis which has now been discovered to have spread
into the white-tailed deer population in the State of Michigan. If
information on the scope of this disease in deer and methodologies to
monitor and reduce this problem is not available rather soon, this
could cause significant problems for the plans to eradicate
tuberculosis from cattle in the United States.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the research is to develop information
about the spread of the bovine tuberculosis organism, Mycobacterium
bovis, within the deer population of Michigan. Appropriate control
programs can not be devised until the epidemiologic information is
available.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2000
and the appropriation for fiscal year 2000 is $170,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds by
fiscal year?
Answer. Because this project is just being initiated in this fiscal
year, 2000, there is no information available about other funding for
the project.
Question. Where is this work being performed?
Answer. The research is being performed in the College of
Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
is 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Because this project is just being started in fiscal year
2000, no evaluation has been done at this time.
BRUCELLOSIS VACCINE, MONTANA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been conducted under the Brucellosis Vaccine, Montana grant.
Answer. This project will study the immune response of bison to
Brucella abortus antigen which has been incorporated into an organism
that can be given orally to the animals. The objective is to produce an
oral vaccine that can be easily administered to the bison without
subjecting them to intensive handling procedures.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for the
research?
Answer. The research project is intended to develop a strategy for
vaccinating or immunizing cattle against brucellosis by incorporation
of Brucella abortus genes into an orally administered system.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the project was to accomplish
incorporation of Brucella genes which code for specific antigens into
Salmonella species of bacteria and test the efficacy of oral
administration of this material in developing systemic immunity in
bison.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work was started in fiscal year 1999. The appropriation
for fiscal year 1999 was $150,000, and for fiscal year 2000 was
$425,000 for a total of $575,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds by
fiscal year?
Answer. The source and amount of non-Federal funds for fiscal year
1999 was $67,401 from State sources.
Question. Where is this work being performed?
Answer. The work is being performed at Montana State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
was May, 2002 or three years from the initiation of the project.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. As the project was started in the summer of 1999, there has
not yet been an agency evaluation.
CENTER FOR ANIMAL HEALTH AND PRODUCTIVITY, PENNSYLVANIA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Center for Animal Health and Productivity grant.
Answer. This research is designed to reduce nutrient transfer to
the environment surrounding dairy farms in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. Progress to date includes the development of an individual
dairy cow model which will predict absorbed amino acids and the loss of
nitrogen in manure. This model has been developed into a user friendly
software so that trained farm advisors can evaluate herd nutrient
management status while on a farm site. A whole farm model has been
developed which integrates feeding and agronomic practices to predict
utilization of nitrogen and farm surpluses. Using these tools, a survey
of dairy farms in the region has been done to assess nitrogen status on
dairy farms and potential management practices to reduce nitrogen
excesses on dairy farms. Refinement of the model tools and research to
refine estimates of the environmental fate of excess nitrogen from
dairy farms is in progress. During the last year, researchers have
discovered that significant nitrogen is lost from the animal housing
facility in the form of ammonia volatilization to the atmosphere.
Preliminary estimates indicate that as much as 50 percent of the
nitrogen consumed by dairy cows is lost as ammonia to the atmosphere
and never reaches the manure storage and management system. Two on-site
reviews of the program have been conducted by the CSREES Project
Officer and a third is planned during 2000. The animal and farm models
have been published in a peer reviewed scientific journals.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that reducing non-point
pollution of ground and surface water by nitrogen from intensive
livestock production units are of concern nationally, and especially in
sensitive ecosystems like the Chesapeake Bay. This research is designed
to find alternative feeding, cropping and management systems which will
reduce net nutrient flux on Pennsylvania dairy farms to near zero. The
principal researcher believes this research to be of national,
regional, and local need. Members of the research team have applied for
funding through both the National Research Initiative and the Fund for
Rural America. The Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems
should provide additional opportunity for funding of this research.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goals of this research remains the development
of whole farm management systems which will reduce nutrient losses to
the external environment to near zero. To date the researchers have
developed their own models to more accurately formulate rations for
individual dairy cows which permit the comparison of alternative
feeding programs based upon both maximal animal performance and minimal
nutrient losses in animal waste. This model is being tested on select
commercial dairy farms to evaluate the extent to which total nitrogen
losses in manure can be reduced without impacting economic performance
of the farm. At the same time, whole farm nutrient models have been
developed to evaluate alternative cropping systems which will make
maximum use of nutrients from animal waste and minimize nutrient flux
from the total farm system. These tools are currently being used to
survey the current status of nutrient balance on farms in the area and
efforts to fine tune the tools are in progress. The recent discovery of
the quantitative significance of nitrogen loss as ammonia to the
atmosphere and potential transport from the farm and redeposition to
the earth's surface raises a whole new aspect of nutrient management.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. A grant has been awarded from funds appropriated in fiscal
year 1993 for $134,000 and in fiscal year 1994 for $126,000. In fiscal
years 1995-2000, $113,000 has been appropriated each year. A total of
$938,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. This information is not available at the present time.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at the University of
Pennsylvania, College of Veterinary Medicine at New Bolton Center,
Pennsylvania.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The University researchers anticipate that work currently
underway will be completed by September 2000. This will complete the
original objectives of the research. The principal researcher indicates
that consideration has been given to the broadening of objectives to
include additional nutrients in the model system, but this has been
dropped because technical expertise required is currently not readily
available.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The Center for Animal Health and Productivity Project was
last reviewed in June 1997. An on site review by agency technical staff
was conducted in June 1995. It was concluded that project objectives
are within the goals of the program, are within the mission of both the
USDA and CSREES, and the institution is well equipped and qualified to
carry out the research project. The institution has made excellent
progress toward the completion of the original goals of the project,
but still must evaluate the effectiveness of the use of the new tools
developed in reducing nutrient runoff from commercial dairy farms in
the watershed of the Chesapeake Bay.
CENTER FOR RURAL STUDIES, VERMONT
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded under the Center for Rural Studies Project in Vermont.
Answer. The Center for Rural Studies Project involves applied
research focused on developing and refining social and economic
indicators used to evaluate the impact of economic development
programming and activities. They are perfecting a delivery format for
technical assistance for community and small business development. A
major component of current research relates to utilization of the world
wide web as a delivery vehicle. Project proposal undergoes a merit
review within the agency.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. This is an on-going pilot to demonstrate the effective
development and implementation of applied research, training,
education, and technical assistance related to rural development. The
grant has addressed methodology and strategies for assessing rural
development program impacts.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished?
Answer. The original goal was to create a database and analytical
capability for rural development programming in Vermont. Examples of
past accomplishments include maps presented to target child hunger
programs, targeted areas for other types of rural development program
intervention, analytical reports to guide the development of retail
shopping areas, an ``Economic Handbook for Vermont Counties'', and
strategies for using the world wide web to disseminate information.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The grant was initiated in fiscal year 1992. Appropriated
amounts are: fiscal years 1992-93, $37,000 per year; fiscal year 1994,
$35,000; fiscal years 1995-98, $32,000 per year; fiscal year 1999-2000,
$200,000 for total appropriations of $637,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Fiscal year 1991 included $91,130 in State matching funds.
Fiscal years 1993, $143,124; 1994-96, $3,547 State matching funds.
Fiscal years 1997-98 State dollars were $2,931 plus researcher's
salary. No non-Federal dollars were provided for fiscal year 1999-2000.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Applied research and outreach is being carried out through
the University of Vermont.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original completion date was September 30, 1993. The
original objectives of this research have been met. The additional
objectives being presented for the current year will be completed by
September 30, 2002. Proposal for current year has not been received to
date.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency evaluates the merit of research proposals as
they are submitted. No formal evaluation of this project has been
conducted. The principal investigators and project managers submit
annual reports to the agency to document impact of the project. Agency
evaluation of the project includes peer review of accomplishments and
proposal objectives and targeted outcomes.
CHESAPEAKE BAY AGROECOLOGY, MD
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Chesapeake Bay Agroecology, MD special grant.
Answer. The Chesapeake Bay Agroecology grant focuses on increasing
our understanding of nutrient cycling, retention and utilization by
vital agricultural industries located within vulnerable Chesapeake Bay
watershed ecosystems that have been impacted by outbreaks of the toxic
microorganisms Pfiesteria. There is a specific focus on Maryland's
Eastern Shore.
This research focus has been identified as a priority by the State
of Maryland's Blue Ribbon Pfiesteria Action Commission Report (1997),
and by a Research, Education, and Economics (REE) strategic plan
emphasis, Greater Harmony Between Agriculture and the Environment, that
calls for a better understanding of the linkages between agricultural
production, water and soil quality, range and forest land health, and
habitat protection.
Since the projects were initiated last year, investigators spent
the first year designing and implementing their research. While some
preliminary results are available, quantitative conclusions will
require more time.
Requested funds in fiscal year 2000 will support interdisciplinary
projects that bring together the expertise of numerous scientists
located at institutions throughout the University System of Maryland.
These scientists continue to generate technical and scientific advances
that guide Federal, State and local policy responses to Pfiesteria
outbreaks.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research.
Answer. The continued viability of Maryland's important coastal
agricultural economy, and the protection of Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic
Coastal aquatic and agricultural resources from future Pfiesteria
outbreaks, depends upon our ability to prevent future toxic algal
blooms by stemming the flow of nitrogen, phosphorus, and other
agricultural nutrients into estuarine waterways.
Maryland is an acknowledged leader in implementing agricultural
nutrient management, soil conservation, conservation reserve,
Chesapeake Bay tributary team and other cooperative planning
strategies. However, non-point sources of nutrients remain a major
source of pollution into Atlantic Coastal waterways, and farmland
remains the largest controllable source of non-point nutrient loading
into Chesapeake Bay. Thus, it is essential that we continue to increase
our efforts to stem nutrient losses into waterways while preserving and
enhancing important agricultural industries.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this research is to increase our understanding
of nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) cycling, retention and
utilization by vital agricultural industries located in coastal regions
of Chesapeake Bay, and to develop new technologies and strategies that
limit nutrient losses while enhancing vital agricultural industries.
This project was initiated in fiscal year 1999.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. This project was initiated in fiscal year 1999, and has
received $150,000 in fiscal years 1999 and 2000. A total of $300,000
has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The project is in its first year. The State of Maryland has
pledged to match 100 percent of the Federal funds provided in fiscal
year 2000 and in future years for the Chesapeake Bay Agroecology
Project.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. This research will be conducted at University System of
Maryland institutions and field research stations located throughout
the State, with an emphasis on the Eastern Shore of Maryland which
experienced significant Pfiesteria outbreaks.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Major progress has been made towards meeting specific
projects as well as regional objectives. However, the issues being
addressed are complex and solutions will require a long-term approach.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project has not yet been reviewed by the agency.
However, the projects supported by this special grant are peer reviewed
by an independent, external scientific panel and before competitive
awards are made to qualified scientists located throughout the
University System of Maryland.
CHESAPEAKE BAY AQUACULTURE, MARYLAND
Question. Please provide a description of the research funded under
the Chesapeake Bay Aquaculture grant.
Answer. The agency requested that the university submit a grant
proposal that has yet to be received. The objective of the Chesapeake
Bay Aquaculture project is to improve the culture of striped bass and
its hybrids through genetic improvement, reproductive biology,
nutrition, health management, waste management, and product quality.
The research is aimed at enhancing production efficiency, product
safety, and provides a good balance between basic and applied research.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal investigator indicates that the Mid-Atlantic
region of the country continues to play a significant role in the
overall expansion of the domestic aquaculture industry. Research
supported through this program will assist in enhancing the culture of
striped bass and its hybrids in the United States.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original research goal was to generate new knowledge
that can be utilized to address serious problems limiting the expansion
of the aquaculture industry in Maryland and the Mid-Atlantic region.
The program concentrates on closing the life cycle, enhancing
production efficiency, decreasing effluents, and improving product
quality under aquaculture conditions of striped bass and its hybrids.
Research is conducted in the areas of growth, reproduction and
development, nutrition, aquacultural systems, product quality, and
aquatic animal health. Progress has been made in developing controlled
artificial spawning techniques, cryopreservation of sperm, and refining
the nutritional requirements.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported under this grant began in fiscal year
1990 and the appropriation for fiscal year 1990 was $370,000. The
fiscal years 1991-1993 was $437,000 per year; fiscal year 1994,
$411,000; fiscal years 1995-1998, $370,000 each year, and for each of
fiscal years 1999 and 2000, $385,000. A total of $4,342,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The university reports the amount of non-Federal funding
for this program is as follows: in fiscal years 1991 and 1992,
$200,000; in fiscal years 1993 and 1994, $175,000; in fiscal year 1995
$400,000; in fiscal year 1996 $536,000; in fiscal year 1997
approximately $400,000; in fiscal year 1998, $360,000; and in fiscal
year 1999, approximately $360,000. These funds are from direct State
appropriations and other non-Federal funding sources.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at the University of Maryland.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original specific research objectives were to be
completed in 1993. The original specific research objectives have been
met, however, research funded through this grant continues to address
problems faced by the hybrid-striped bass industry in Maryland and
throughout the country. The specific research outlined in the current
proposal will be completed in fiscal year 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency's Program Managers and Program Specialist
evaluate the progress of this project on an annual basis. The
researchers are asked to the develop a research proposal consistent
with the National Science and Technology Council's Strategic Plan for
Aquaculture Research and Development. The university awards grants
consistent with United States Department of Agriculture guidelines
based upon internal competitive peer review. The 1999 review concluded
that the proposal was well written with objectives clearly stated; that
excellent progress is reported on previous work; that scientific and
technical expertise is excellent; and that the proposal addresses high-
priority research needs. The proposal does address high priority
research needs for the aquaculture industry at the State, regional, and
national level and is consistent with the National Science and
Technology Council's Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture Strategic Plan
for Aquaculture Research and Development.
CITRUS TRISTEZA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the citrus tristeza research program grant.
Answer. Nine projects were selected for funding through a CSREES
competitive grants program. Some of the research included survey
information on distribution of the brown citrus aphid and Citrus
Tristeza Virus in Louisiana and Arizona, the develop of resistant
citrus varieties to the virus, better understanding of virus strains
and the disease complex and biological control efforts on the brown
citrus aphid in Florida.
Question. According to this research proposal, or the principal
investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Citrus Tristeza virus is a problem in all citrus growing
areas of the United States and Puerto Rico. The recent introduction of
a new vector, the brown citrus aphid, into Florida has allowed for
another pathotype of the virus to be introduced. This is a more
destructive pathotype of the virus that causes more damage than those
pathotypes already established in the citrus producing areas.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this research is to reduce losses in citrus
through research the characterization and detection of citrus tristeza
virus strains, biology and control of the brown citrus aphid; host
plant resistance; epidemiology and crop loss assessment; development of
cross-protecting citrus tristeza virus strains, and research to enhance
virus free budwood programs.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999
at the appropriation level of $500,000 and for fiscal year 2000, the
appropriation is $595,000. A total of $1,095,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. There are no non-Federal funds provided for this grant.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being carried out at land grant universities
and research centers in the Florida, Louisiana, California, and
Arizona.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This is the second year of this funding. An anticipated
completion has not been determined as the original objectives have not
been met at this time.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. All projects underwent a peer review at the University
level, a scientific peer review and an agency merit review in August,
1999.
COASTAL CULTIVARS, GA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Coastal Cultivars grant.
Answer. The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service has requested the university to submit a grant proposal that
has not yet been received. The research will address new plant crops
and sustainable production systems.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The research need to which this grant is directed is to
potential new crop plants for the South Eastern United States Coastal
zone and develop sustainable production systems. The results will have
application throughout the region. Farmers currently have few options.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research is to improve rural
income by identifying new crop cultivars for production in this area
that now has few options.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1997
and the appropriations for fiscal year 1997 was $200,000, for fiscal
year 1998, $250,000 for fiscal year 1999 was--0. The appropriations for
fiscal year 2000 is $170,000. The total is $411,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were estimated to be $97,400 in 1997 and $146,200 in 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work is being carried out at the University of Georgia
Coastal Garden research facility.
Question. When was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
is fiscal year 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Project proposals for this program were reviewed and
evaluated in fiscal years 1997 and 1998.
competitiveness of agriculture products, washington
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the Competitiveness of Agriculture Products research
grant?
Answer. This research identifies international marketing
opportunities for Northwest firms in the forest products and food
products sectors.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Most food processing firms are small. Their export sales
are made in many widely scattered markets with different languages,
customs, institutions, and market structures. These markets have also
been subjected to wrenching changes. University researchers provide a
central and stable core of knowledgeable experts who can guide small
export businesses in navigating these markets successfully.
Forest products from the Pacific Northwest can be shipped to Asian
markets for less than shipping them to the eastern population centers
in the United States. Research has opened Asian markets to U.S. light
frame construction building technology, providing good opportunities to
export higher valued secondary manufactured products to Japan and
China. Research has also been focused on forest management alternatives
that can better satisfy environmental goals with less negative impacts
on timber-dependent communities. The Northwest agricultural economy is
highly dependent upon being able to export given that food production
in the region greatly exceeds food consumption.
Northwest wood products companies that could export are generally
small and are not able to provide their own research. Construction
technologies used in Asian markets are inferior to U.S. technology, yet
there is a long history of use and cultural appreciation of traditional
methods. Deregulation and change in these markets has required
extensive research on comparability of alternative product and building
standards, quality and service needs, training in the U.S. technology,
and customization to foreign consumer values. The Pacific Northwest can
grow more wood with higher quality using more advanced technologies
while reducing the impact on timber-dependent communities from harvest
constraints to protect certain species.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal is to provide the information on markets and
product technologies that can open higher-valued international markets
to U.S. exporters. Foreign purchasers need information on the
advantages of U.S. products, and U.S. exporters need information on the
substantially different quality and service requirements for serving
foreign markets. If the United States can remain competitive and retain
its presence in these markets in the face of a stronger dollar, exports
should return to a high growth path once Asian economies recover.
Evidence to date suggests that this is indeed happening.
The food production research has focused on finding new market
opportunities for Pacific Northwest producers, solving technical
impediments to exports and developing new products and new processes
that will enhance exports. It has pinpointed emerging market
opportunities in Southeast Asia, China, Mexico, and Latin America. It
has improved the export quality of diverse products, such as asparagus,
apples, grass-seed, and wheat. It has helped commercialize high-value
products, such as Wagyu beef, azuki beans, wasabi radish and burdock,
and pioneered new food processing technologies that produce fresh-like,
shelf-stable products and that save energy and reduce waste.
Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work began in fiscal year 1992. The appropriation for
fiscal years 1992-1993 was $800,000 each year; fiscal year 1994,
$752,000; fiscal years 1995-1998, $677,000 each year; and $680,000 in
fiscal years 1999 and 2000. A total of $4,420,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $716,986 State appropriations, $209,622 product sales,
$114,000 industry, and $661,119 miscellaneous, for a total of
$1,701,727 in 1991; $727,345 State appropriations, $114,81 product
sales, $299,000 industry, and $347,425 miscellaneous for a total of
$1,488,351 in 1992; $1,259,437 State appropriations, $55,089 product
sales, $131,000 industry, and $3,000 miscellaneous, for a total of
$1,448,526 in 1993; $801,000 State appropriations, $1,055,000 product
sales, $1,040,000 industry, and $244,000 miscellaneous, for a total of
$3,140,000 in 1994; $810,000 State appropriations, $42,970 product
sales, $785,000 industry, and $2,000,000 gift of a ranch due to the
International Marketing Program for Agricultural commodities and Trade
Center's research on Wagyu cattle, for a total of $3,637,970 in 1995;
$844,000 State appropriations, $45,000 product sales $900,000 industry,
and $45,000 miscellaneous, for a total of $1,834,000 in 1996; $876,000
State appropriations, $1,606,000 industry, for a total of $2,482,000 in
1997, $1,180,000 State appropriations, $604,000 industry, for a total
of $1,784,000 in 1998, and $1,551,000 State appropriations, $1,006,400
industry, $62,000 product sales, and $30,096 miscellaneous, for a total
of $2,649,496 in 1999.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The food research is being carried out by the International
Marketing Program for Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT) at
Washington State University, Pullman, and the forest products research
is carried out at the Center for International Trade in Forest Products
(CINTRAFOR) at the University of Washington, Seattle.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The project was projected for 3 years duration to be
completed following fiscal year 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Two evaluations of the Washington State University
component of the project were conducted in 1992 by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture. The State of Washington Legislative Budget Committee
gave the Washington State Center exemplary marks for meeting its
objectives. On-site reviews are conducted annually of the University of
Washington component of the project through annual meetings of the
project's executive board attended by the agency's staff. Both
components are reviewed annually by the agency. The project is meeting
the key objective of trade expansion through innovative research. The
University of Washington project was formally reviewed by the agency in
1991. State reviews were completed in 1992 and 1994. A formal review by
the University was completed in 1997. A broad survey of constituents
impacted by the research was completed, resulting in a very favorable
review of the Center's activities and a recommendation to continue this
research. In 1998, State of Washington legislation eliminated the
requirement for State reviews of the center, including one scheduled
for 1999, based on hearings that focused on the other favorable reviews
and the continuous oversight by the Executive Board.
COOL SEASON LEGUME RESEARCH
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Cool Season Legume Research grant.
Answer. The Cool Season Legume Research Program involves projects
to improve efficiency and sustainability of pea, lentil, chickpea, and
fava bean cropping systems collaborative research. Scientists from
seven States where these crops are grown have developed cooperative
research projects directed toward crop improvement, crop protection,
crop management, and human nutrition/product development.
Question. According to the research proposal, or principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The multi-state region covered by this program represents
most of the nation's production of cool season food legumes. These
minor crops are very important economically to the region, are the
primary source of these important food items, and contribute
significantly to U.S. agricultural exports. The growers face a number
of production problems that need research if this industry is to
compete with international competition. In addition, use of these crops
in rotation with wheat is critical to the production of wheat, the
major cash crop for the region. National research in the area of crop
genetics could potentially be supported by competitive grants awarded
under the National Research Initiative and the Initiative for Future
Food and Agricultural Systems.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The principal researcher believes the original goal of this
project was to improve efficiency and sustainability of cool season
food legumes through an integrated collaborative research program and
genetic resistance to important virus diseases in peas and lentils.
Evaluation studies of biocontrol agents for root disease organisms on
peas are underway. Other studies are evaluating integration of genetic
resistance and chemical control. Considerable progress has been made
using biotechnology to facilitate gene identification and transfer.
Management system studies have addressed tillage and weed control
issues.
Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991
with appropriations for fiscal year 1991 of $375,000; fiscal year 1992
and 1993 $387,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $364,000; fiscal year
1995, $103,000; fiscal years 1996 and 1999, $329,000, fiscal year 2000
$329,000. A total of $3,261,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds provided for this grant were as
follows: 1991, $304,761 State appropriations, $14,000 industry, and
$18,071 other non-Federal; 1992, $364,851 State appropriations, $15,000
industry, and $14,000 other non-Federal; 1993, $400,191 State
appropriations, $19,725 industry, and $10,063, other non-Federal; and
1994, $147,607 non-Federal support. Non-Federal support for 1995 was
$150,607; for 1996 it was $386,887; for 1998, $392,000 and for 1999
$557,000.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research has been conducted at agricultural experiment
stations in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York
and New Hampshire. The funds have been awarded competitively among
participating States and not all States receive funds each year.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The projected duration of the initial project was five
years. Revised objectives are expected to be completed in 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation?
Answer. The project is evaluated annually by a university/industry
advisory panel. Proposals are peer reviewed at the universities and by
the agency National Program Leaders. This research has provided vital
information which is already being used to improve production
management. However, a number of critical issues related to insect and
disease control as well as crop quality remain to be addressed.
Breeding for insect and disease resistance is given the highest
priority, while crop management alternatives to help reduce disease and
insect pest problems will continue to be studied.
CRANBERRY AND BLUEBERRY, MASSACHUSETTS
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the cranberry/blueberry research program grant.
Answer. CSREES has requested the university to submit a grant
proposal that has not yet been received.
Question. According to this research proposal, or the principal
investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The research is a new approach to managing pests associated
with cranberries and blueberries in Massachusetts. The program is
focusing on the use of molecular genetics to reduce pesticide
dependency in cranberry production. The research will be applicable to
all cranberry research in States where cranberries are produced.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goals of this research are to determine whether early
emerging and late emerging dodder populations can be differentiated
using molecular markers; to determine the relationships among several
isolates of a fungus which might be used in biological control; to
screen various plant pathogen fungi isolates for infectivity and
virulence and determine the presence of genes in these isolates; and
develop an in vitro assay system for root rot and induce resistance in
cranberry plants caused by different isotypes of the fungus.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1999 and 2000 was $150,000. A
total of $300,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. There were no non-Federal funds provided for this grant in
1999 or 2000.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being carried out at the University of
Massachusetts Cranberry Experiment Station.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Since this began in fiscal year 1999, the original
objectives have not yet been met.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project underwent a merit review at the agency level in
January, 1999. Due to delayed funding of this project until July of
1999, research is just now starting on these objectives.
CRANBERRY-BLUEBERRY DISEASE AND BREEDING, NEW JERSEY
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Cranberry-Blueberry Disease and Breeding, New
Jersey grant.
Answer. The work has focused on identification and monitoring of
insect pests on blueberries and cranberries, the identification,
breeding, and incorporation of superior germplasm into horticulturally-
desirable genotypes, identification and determination of several fungal
fruit-rotting species, and identification of root-rot resistant
cranberry genotypes. Overall, research has focused on the attainment of
cultural management methods that are environmentally compatible, while
reducing blueberry and cranberry crop losses.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. This project involves diseases having major impacts on New
Jersey's cranberry and blueberry industries, but the findings here are
being shared with experts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and New England.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal was the development of cranberry and
blueberry cultivars compatible with new disease and production
management strategies. Over 75 blueberry selections with wild blueberry
accessions resistant to secondary mummy berry infections have been
moved into advanced testing identified. The biology and seasonal life
history of spotted fireworm on cranberries has been determined. A
pheromone trap-based monitoring system for cranberry fruitworm was
developed and further refined for commercialization. Blueberry fruit
volatiles attractive to blueberry maggots were identified and tested in
the field. Researchers have planted over 4500 cranberry progeny for
evaluation. Seven major fruit-rotting fungal species were identified,
and their incidence in 10 major cultivars of blueberry and cranberry
were determined. It is likely that resistance to fruit rot is specific
to fungal species.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1985, $100,000; fiscal year 1986-1987, $95,000 per
year; fiscal year 1988-1989, $260,000 per year; fiscal year 1990,
$275,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $260,000 per year; fiscal year 1994,
$244,000; and fiscal years 1995-1999, $220,000 each year. A total of
$3,209,000 has been appropriated
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. State and non-Federal sources are providing funds in the
amount of 250,000 each year.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This research is being conducted at the New Jersey
Agricultural Experiment Station.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The completion date for the original objectives was 1995.
Those objectives have not been met. To complete the breeding, disease
and insect management and provision of new management guidelines for
extension and crop consultants, it estimated that an additional five to
nine years will be required.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted?
Answer. The last agency evaluation of this project occurred in
January, 1999. In summary, the evaluation stated that the effort has
continued to be highly productive, with various improved management
strategies, plant materials and environmentally-balanced pesticides
being areas of major impact. Some specific accomplishments included
continued evaluation of blueberry and cranberry germplasm for yield,
color, fruit rot, and flavor; and development of an efficient plant
regeneration system for cranberry for genetic transformation. Other
research includes trap and lure development for monitoring the
cranberry fruitworm and evaluation of several aphicides in blueberries.
The discovery of an antisporulant in a registered fungicide provide for
a novel use patent for blueberry anthracnose control.
CRITICAL ISSUES
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the grant.
Answer. These funds support research on critical issues related to
new or emerging pests and diseases of animals and plants. The program
is expected to initiate research in a short time period until other
resources can be secured to address the issue. The program began in
fiscal year 1996 when potato late blight and vesicular stomatitis in
animals were the two targeted emerging problems chosen for funding.
Funding for these two projects was continued with fiscal year 1997
funds to permit orderly conclusion of work leading to integrated pest
management efforts for the potato late blight and for further surveys
on wildlife reservoirs of the vesicular stomatitis virus. During fiscal
year 1998 these funds were used for support of a project on a newly
emerging corona virus strain that is a probable cause of severe
outbreaks of shipping fever or pneumonia in transported beef cattle.
For plant diseases, fiscal year 1998 funds were used to support two
major research projects on a new disease of sorghum, Sorghum Ergot. The
two projects were Epidemiology and Life History of Ergot and
Development of Integrated Control of Sorghum Ergot. In fiscal year
1999, Johne's Disease of cattle was identified by both veterinary
researchers and APHIS animal disease control staff as a major issue.
For plants in fiscal year 1999, research was supported on the insect
vectored disease, Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl virus.
Question. What is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. Vesicular stomatitis was of national impact due to its
similarity to foot and mouth disease and the negative effect on
movement of horses, cattle and swine during an outbreak. Since 1992
new, highly virulent strains of the potato late blight fungus
Phytophthora infestans caused severe losses in potato and tomato
production throughout the United States, resulting in what some experts
term a national crisis. From 1993 to 1995, a series of meetings
involving growers, consultants, industry, academia and government
assessed the growing problem and participants concluded that
extraordinary steps were needed to mobilize research efforts that would
help address the problem in the near term. Bovine shipping fever causes
heavy economic losses to the beef industry in cattle being shipped to
feedlots and vaccines for currently recognized viruses seem to be
ineffective in certain settings in preventing outbreaks. The isolation
of a probable new virus, bovine respiratory corona virus represents an
opportunity to contribute to the reduction of this disease complex in
cattle. Sorghum Ergot is a serious disease of sorghum which was first
detected in Texas in March, 1997. It rapidly spread to almost all
sorghum growing regions of the U.S. by September 1997. Johne's Disease
has been identified by several commodity and animal health
organizations as the leading problem for dairy cattle owners and also a
serious issue for beef producers. Decisions on specific research needs
and focus of research projects is decided after consultation with a
variety of commodity stakeholders, other USDA agencies, especially the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, scientists in the land
grant system, and other public input. Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl virus is
a newly introduced disease into Florida that has caused considerable
crop loss. The disease moved rapidly over the entire State and now has
moved into Georgia. This disease is vectored by the silver leaf
whitefly and affects tomatoes, beans, and other vegetables. The disease
symptoms are severe stunting, distortion, and high rates of flower
loss.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the research supported by this program is to
focus on specific questions or issues which are considered to be most
important in developing control or prevention programs for the disease
agent under investigation, whether in plants or animals. Thus, for the
animal studies, the focus has been on identifying natural reservoirs of
the vesicular stomatitis virus and insects which are capable of
transmitting the disease among animals; determining the precise
significance of the apparent new corona virus in shipping fever
pneumonia of beef cattle; and developing a sub-unit vaccine for Johne's
Disease in cattle and determining the significance of a linkage between
Johne's Disease and Crohn's disease of humans. In spite of a very large
research effort, the natural reservoir for vesicular stomatitis virus
is still unknown. The bovine respiratory disease work on the apparently
new respiratory corona virus is expected to validate the role of this
virus in outbreaks of pneumonia in cattle vaccinated for other known
causes of shipping fever. Confirmation of such a fact will provide a
basis for development of control measures including vaccine
development. Research was initiated to provide growers with the
knowledge and technologies they need to reduce economic losses
resulting from potato late blight with less reliance on pesticides.
Research initiated with fiscal year 1996 funds is making progress in
developing modeling tools and management approaches that are an
important step towards reducing the devastating effects of late blight.
The National Late Blight Fungicide Trial provided important information
on the efficacy of an array of fungicide programs. A World Wide Web
site was established to provide growers, researchers and industry with
the latest information on management of potato late blight. The
research projects on Sorghum Ergot were intended to develop information
about the history and epidemiology of the disease which would lead to
studies on development of integrated control programs for this fungus.
Research on Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus has aided in the
understanding of which field crops other than tomato serve as a source
of virus infection. Weed reservoirs were also studied as potential
whitefly infection sites. These results will help in the development of
field management strategies for this virus. Another research project
tested transformed tomatoes that had been selected for resistance to
Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl virus. This approach was successful in
developing resistant tomatoes to another similar virus and is expected
to produce highly resistant tomato varieties to Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl
virus.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. $200,000 were appropriated in fiscal years 1996-2000 for a
total appropriation of $1,000,000 to date. The fiscal year 2001 budget
proposes an increase of $267,000 for a total of $467,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. This information should be available within 30 days.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. From 1996 to 1997, the vesicular stomatitis work was
conducted at the University of Arizona and Colorado State University.
The potato late blight work has been conducted at Washington State
University, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, University of
Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania State University, and North Carolina State
University. In 1998 the bovine respiratory disease work was performed
at Louisiana State University. The Sorghum Ergot work is being done at
the University of Nebraska and Texas A&M University. In 1999 the
research on Johne's Disease has been performed at Iowa State University
and the University of Iowa. The research on Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl
Virus was carried out at the Gulf Coast Research and Education Center,
University of Florida, Bradenton, FL and the Tropical Research and
Education Center, University of Florida, Homestead, FL.
Question. What was the anticipated date for the original objectives
of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the anticipated
completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The Critical Issues funds are intended to support the
initiation of research on issues requiring immediate attention until
other, longer-term resources are available. The objectives of the
projects are short-term and are expected to be completed within a 1-2
year period. This has been true for the vesicular stomatitis and potato
late blight work. These projects have been reviewed to ensure
compliance with the original goals during fiscal year 1997.
The subsequent project grants for potato blight in 1997 and for
Sorghum Ergot and bovine respiratory disease in 1998 had short term
goals and are expected to be completed by the end of their project
years which will occur in late spring 1999. Similarly, the objectives
of the research funded with fiscal year 1999 funds are expected to be
completed by the summer of 2000. For the Johne's Disease work, the
emphasis is on determining the likelihood of a link between this
disease of cattle and Crohn's Disease in the human and also developing
a vaccine to prevent further spread within the cattle population. For
Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus, the emphasis is on field management of
the disease and the development of virus resistant varieties of tomato.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. All projects were reviewed for scientific merit before
funding decisions were made. Also, scientists being supported with
these funds are in close contact with CSREES' National Program Leaders
in these areas so that the agency is kept abreast of developments as
they occur. Each investigator is required to submit a detailed report
at the end of the funding period to document their accomplishments with
these funds. In addition, site visits are arranged when convenient to
include as part of other official travel to that State. The vesicular
stomatitis research had a site visit review in early 1998 and was
reviewed as a completed project in March, 1999 during a program review
at the University of Arizona. The final results of the bovine
respiratory work were submitted to CSREES for review in early fall,
1999. The plant related projects have received similar reviews as the
projects have moved forward, and the results are being reported at
regional and national meetings.
DAIRY AND MEAT GOAT RESEARCH, PRAIRIE VIEW A&M, TEXAS
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the dairy goat research grant?
Answer. The program has addressed a range of issues associated with
goat production. Research by scientists at the International Dairy Goat
Center, Prairie View A&M University focuses on problems affecting goat
production in the United States. Issues included are the study of
nutritional requirements of goats, disease problems, methods to improve
reproductive efficiency in the doe, the use of gene transfer to improve
caprine genetics and the evaluation of breeding schemes to improve meat
and milk production. Currently, research is in progress to assess the
economics of alternative breeding and rearing systems for goats in the
southeastern region of the U.S., to study the incidence and impact of
intestinal parasites, and to develop least-cost health management
strategies for parasite control.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that nationally, most of
the farm enterprises that include goats are diverse and maintain a
relatively small number of animals. Responding to disease, nutrition,
breeding and management problems will improve efficiency of production
and economic returns to the enterprise.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to conduct research
that will lead to improvement in goat production among the many small
producers in the United States. Research has been conducted to develop
and improve nutritional standards, improve genetic lines for meat and
milk production and to define mechanisms that impede reproductive
efficiency in goats. Current efforts focus on the development of
enterprise budget management tools for goat producers in the Texas gulf
coast region.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded through appropriated funds as
follows: $100,000 per year for fiscal years 1983-85; $95,000 per year
for fiscal years 1986-88; no funds were appropriated in fiscal year
1989; $74,000 for fiscal year 1990; $75,000 per year for fiscal years
1991-1993; $70,000 for fiscal year 1994; and $63,000 per year for
fiscal years 1995-2000. A total of $1,332,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The University reports no non-Federal funds expended on
this program.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at Prairie View A&M University
in Texas.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The overall objective of this research is to support the
needs of small farms engaged in the production of meat and milk from
goats along the Texas Gulf Coast. The University researchers continue
to address those needs on an annual basis and anticipate that work
currently in progress will be completed by the end of fiscal year 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The Dairy/Meat Goat Research grant was reviewed last in
June 1997. The project objectives are within the goals of the program,
are within the mission of both USDA and CSREES, and the institution is
well equipped and qualified to carry out the research project.
DELTA RURAL REVITALIZATION, MISSISSIPPI
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded under the Delta Rural Revitalization, Mississippi Project?
Answer: The Delta Rural Revitalization, Mississippi Project
involves applied research and outreach focused on creating new and
expanded economic development opportunities for the Mississippi Delta
region. The project has gone through several phases in the delineation
of a strategy for long range development within the region. Phase I was
completed with the delivery of a baseline assessment of the economic,
social, and political factors that enhance or impede the advancement of
the region. Phase II of the project evaluated the potential for
entrepreneurship and small business creation as mechanisms to improve
economic conditions. Phase III is now focusing on technical assistance
to Delta region manufacturing firms to strengthen their ability to
provide employment and incomes and includes the development and
refinement of data bases and development statistics. The proposals are
submitted for internal review and evaluation within the agency.
Recommendations are presented to enhance impact on regional and
national agendas and provide greater impact on targeted region.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. This is an on-going pilot to demonstrate the effective
development and implementation of applied research, training,
education, and technical assistance related to job and business
development as a development strategy. The principal researcher
believes that the databases, technical assistance, and analytical
capability will increase the effectiveness of economic development and
entrepreneurial activity in the region.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished?
Answer. The applied research and outreach project was designed to
increase the ability to guide economic development strategically
through target industry attraction. They developed an analytical
baseline for the Delta region to benchmark economic development
progress and to profile potential arenas of opportunity. An
entrepreneurial forum was established to help new business ventures
with start-up advice and assistance. A venture capital association was
formed to help both inventors and businessmen find capital resources to
carry out development initiatives. The emphasis of the project is now
shifted to technical assistance for existing industries.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from appropriated funds in the
following amounts per year: fiscal year 1989, $175,000; fiscal year
1990, $173,000; fiscal years 1991-93, $175,000 per year; fiscal year
1994, $164,000; fiscal years 1995-2000, $148,000 per year. A total of
$1,925,000 has been appropriated and awarded.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Total non-Federal funds from the State of Mississippi
directed to this project, as reported by Mississippi State University,
are: fiscal year 1991, $117,866; fiscal year 1992, $84,402; fiscal year
1993, $68,961; fiscal year 1998, $57,404. Reports for other years
indicate no non-Federal funds.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Applied research and outreach is being carried out through
Mississippi State University and sub-contractors.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original completion date was September 30, 1990. The
original objectives of this research have been met. The additional
objectives being presented for the current year should be completed by
September 30, 2000. The current year proposal has not been submitted to
date.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency evaluates the merit of research proposals as
they are submitted. No formal evaluation of this project has been
conducted. The principal investigators and project managers submit
periodic reports to the agency to document the impact of the project.
Significant suggestions have been offered to improve the relevance and
impact of this project. Time lines tend to lag on targeted
accomplishments. An assessment of the project was conducted by the
Social Science Research Center at Mississippi State University and a
report compiled in November, 1996. A site review was conducted in
April, 1999, to assess the merits of research efforts underway. A
review and evaluation by an outside consultant is currently underway.
DESIGNING FOODS FOR HEALTH, TEXAS
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Designing Foods for Health, Texas grant.
Answer. Designing fruits and vegetables for improved health and
nutrition is the overall goal. Health scientists have documented that
naturally occurring compounds such as flavonoids, carotenoids, and
antioxidants, have health benefits to prevent heart disease, stroke,
and some forms of cancer. The research objective is to develop fruits
and vegetables that have uniform, high levels of these compounds so all
consumers can prevent chronic diseases through their diet. The fiscal
year 1999 grant supports research through June 2000. CSREES requested
the university submit a grant proposal for fiscal year 2000 that has
not yet been received.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The need for this research is to improve the quality and
health-related benefits of fruits and vegetables. Health scientists
have documented that fruits and vegetables have naturally occurring
compounds that promote health and prevent disease. The medical
community advocates that preventing disease is more advantageous than
trying to cure it. For example, a large effort of Texas health science
centers is to develop improved diets that can aid in prevention of
colon, esophagus, and prostate cancers. Improved fruits and vegetables
for health will provide an enormous benefit for consumers worldwide.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research is to design fruits and
vegetables that assist in preventing diseases through diet. The most
exciting accomplishment has been the development of the new carrot,
BetaSweet. It was designed to be attractive, crisp in texture, have
excellent sweet carrot flavor, and to contain a higher content of beta-
carotene than most orange carrots in the marketplace. Beta-carotene is
a major source of Vitamin A and is thought to play additional roles in
preventing certain forms of cancer, especially oral cancer. This carrot
also contains high levels of anthocyanins that are normally found in
fruits. They are known to be excellent antioxidants that prevent blood
clotting, aid in the prevention of some cancers, heart disease, and
strokes. The researchers are also improving health promoting aspects of
the BetaSweet carrot by adding lycopene, which is found in tomatoes.
All these improvements are being done using conventional breeding.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999,
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1999 was $250,000 and fiscal year
2000 was $318,750. A total of $568,750 has been appropriated.
Question. What are the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were $206,500 from university funds and $165,000 from an endowment fund
in 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted at the Vegetable and Fruit
Improvement Center and other locations within the Texas A&M University
System.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original overall objective of developing fruits and
vegetables that contain high levels of naturally occurring compounds
that have health benefits continues to be addressed. The specific
objective of improving the carrot by increasing the carotenoid and
anthocyanin content while maintaining superior flavor and textural
properties will be completed in 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project director conducted a review by peer scientists
at Texas A&M prior to submitting the proposal for fiscal year 1999. The
Vegetable and Fruit Improvement Center has a very active advisory board
which reviews the Center's research programs annually.
DIAPREPES/ROOTWEEVIL, FLORIDA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Diaprepes/Rootweevil grant.
Answer. The funds are requested to address objectives established
by an interagency/industry task force, as follows:
--Assessment of the plant injury and economic damage caused by the
root weevil on horticultural, agronomic and ornamental plants
in the affected area, and the potential for the pest to spread
beyond its current range;
--Development and use of monitoring tools to evaluate population
levels, regions infested, and to predict where economic damage
is likely to occur. Since the pest's most damaging stages, the
larvae, feed on roots, damage is not evident, and thus
monitoring for the presence of the weevil and assessing
population levels is most difficult;
--Development, field evaluation and implementation of management
tools that individually will assist in reducing populations or
the impact of their presence, and collectively, will serve as
the basis for inclusion of weevil management into existing pest
management programs in citrus and other affected crops. These
tools also are being suggested as strategies important to
management of containerized plant material, ornamentals and
fruit trees, so that the weevil is not moved beyond its current
area of infestation into other States and regions. Included in
the tools to be developed are chemical, biological, cultural
and mechanical methods.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Diaprepes abbreviatus is a pest introduced into Florida
from its native Caribbean Islands in the late 1960's, but remained very
localized in few citrus groves until the late 1980's when for unknown
reasons, the pest began to spread, helped by movement of potted plant
material and other mechanical spread methods. Known as a serious pest
of a wide range of plants, from grasses, including Bermuda grass, to
legumes, fruit trees and a large number of ornamental plants, this pest
has the potential to not only affect traditional agricultural
environments, but also native plants and can cause enormous economic
losses in the home landscape, a multi-billion dollar industry in
Florida and the Southeast. Further movement could expand the impact of
this pest to other areas of the United States, and could invoke
regulatory concerns between trading partners and commerce. Currently,
there is no known tool or collection of tools that effectively limits
population growth of the pest, and thus, there is no remedy for this
pest at present. Development and evaluation of methods to locate and
reduce larval populations must rely on a combination of treatments that
are effective, safe, and economical. At present, those infested with
the pest must stand by and watch the trees decline.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research is to develop and
deliver strategies to eliminate further spread and maintain viable
plant health in the presence of the pest. Since it was first funded in
1999 progress towards attainment of the goal is still being assessed.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Fiscal year 2000 is the first year of the grant and
$297,500 has been appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Numerous investments will continue to be made in this
research. University of Florida has several programs who have focused
their efforts on Diaprepes research, including the entomologists,
pathologists and plant improvement teams. Internal funds as well as
effort have been redirected to address this problem. Likewise, United
States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service
scientists at several locations in the Southeast have been assigned to
this research and internal funding is being utilized to address this
problem. The citrus growers of Florida have dedicated considerable
grant dollars from a self-tax for research, and more recently, other
commodity groups are contributing to fund research. In-kind support
through cooperation, shared equipment and other means are being offered
to address the issue. However, the speed with which the pest has spread
and the increasing economic impact has outpaced the current allocation
of resources, and the economic losses are rising.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The work is being carried out at the University of Florida
at Gainesville.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The plan for the work will be submitted with the research
proposal.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This is a new project for which an evaluation has not been
conducted
DROUGHT MITIGATION, NEBRASKA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Drought Mitigation grant.
Answer. The National Drought Mitigation Center in the School of
Natural Resource Sciences at the University of Nebraska has a
comprehensive program aimed at lessening societal vulnerability to
drought. Activities of the Center include promoting and conducting
research on drought mitigation and preparedness technologies, improving
coordination of drought-related activities and actions within and
between levels of government, and assisting in the development,
dissemination, and implementation of appropriate mitigation and
preparedness technologies in the public and private sectors. Emphasis
is directed toward research, outreach projects and mitigation/
management strategies that stress risk minimization.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has recently
estimated that annual losses attributable to drought in the United
States are between $6-8 billion. Drought impacts are escalating in
response to increasing demands for water and other natural resources,
increasing and shifting population, new technologies, and social
behavior. These impacts are diverse and affect the economic,
environmental, and social sectors of society. This fact was reinforced
dramatically in 1996 in the Southwestern United States. Impacts in
Texas alone were estimated to be more than $5 billion.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to create a National
Drought Mitigation Center and develop a comprehensive program aimed at
lessening societal water shortages and vulnerability to drought. The
Center has created an information clearinghouse and is delivering
information to a diverse audience of users through its home page. Over
50,000 users now access the Center's home page each month. The Center's
award winning home page was used extensively by State and Federal
agencies during the 1999 drought to assist in the evaluation and
response process. This home page networks users of drought-related
information in the United States and elsewhere with information that
would otherwise be unavailable or inaccessible to users.
The National Drought Mitigation Center played an important role in
the response of Federal and State Government to the 1996 severe drought
in the Southwest and southern Great Plains States. In addition to
providing timely and relevant information on drought severity and
alternative response, mitigation, and planning measures, the Center
participated in the Multi-state Drought Task Force workshop organized
at the request of President Clinton and helped formulate long-term
recommendations to improve the way this Nation prepares for and
responds to drought. The Center is also a member of the Western
Governors' Association
Drought Task Force. This Task Force made recommendations to Reduce
the risks associated with drought in the western United States.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant received an appropriation
of $200,000 in fiscal years 1995 through 2000, for a total
appropriation of $1,200,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The University of Nebraska contributed $75,737 of non-
Federal funds in support of this research in fiscal year 1995, $58,977
in fiscal year 1996, and $61,545 in fiscal year 1997. The University of
Nebraska contributed $67,819 in fiscal year 1998, and $74,887 in fiscal
year 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being conducted at the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The research conducted under this project is being
undertaken within a series of nine tasks. Significant progress on each
of these tasks has been made, but these activities are ongoing. The
information clearinghouse has been created, but new information and
documents are continuously added to the home page in response to users'
needs and requests. In addition, the drought watch section is updated
monthly to assist users in evaluating current climate and water supply
conditions. Research on new climatic indices to monitor drought and
water supply conditions are being tested and mitigation technologies
and existing State drought plans are continuously evaluated. New
activities are also being initiated in response to the growing interest
and awareness in drought mitigation in the United States and elsewhere.
The activities of the Western Drought Coordination Council provides the
Center with a broadening range of research needs on an annual basis.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project was peer-reviewed at the time the proposal was
prepared in 1998. Each year when the new proposal is prepared, the
proposal is reviewed on the campus and again at CSREES. The project is
evaluated for progress toward completion of objectives, new activities
proposed and accomplishments.
ECOSYSTEMS, ALABAMA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Ecosystems, Alabama, grant.
Answer. In 1998, CSREES approved a proposal from Auburn University
to support projects at two Community Colleges in Alabama-Faulkner State
Community College and Alabama Southern Community College. The Faulkner
State Community College's project is intended to: (1) fund the
development of distance education classrooms for estuarine- and marine-
related education, and (2) to establish an aquaculture-related
veterinary technician education program. The Alabama Southern Community
College project will purchase and install laboratory equipment to
further the education capacity of the Center for Excellence in
Forestry, Paper, and Chemical technology.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the local, regional, or national need for this
project?
Answer. Faulkner State Community College asserts that their
veterinary technician program will be the only such program in the
country, providing the first two years of the degree program leading to
an A.A. degree at Faulkner State, and the second two years leading to a
bachelor's degree at Auburn University. The distance education capacity
is intended to better integrate marine and estuary research into
education activities.
The Center for Excellence in Forestry, Paper, and Chemical
Technology at Alabama Southern Community College is believed to be a
unique educational opportunity in the Southeastern United States due to
the merging of four individual technology training programs. These
programs are: (1) Industrial Maintenance, (2) Electronics and
Instrumentation, (3) Paper Process, and (4) Chemical Process training.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goals for these projects include the development of a
veterinary technician training program and integration of marine and
estuary research into classrooms at Faulkner State Community College;
and to establish a state-of-the-art wood paper process and chemical
process laboratory at Alabama Southern Community College.
The fiscal year 1998 objectives for Faulkner State College were to
establish a distance education web to enhance integration of marine and
estuarine environmental research and to establish a 2+2 veterinary
technician program with an emphasis on marine/aquaculture. The distance
education web is in place and has been tested. In addition, classrooms
have been tested and some faculty have been trained in the use of the
media/hardware. After further assessment, it was decided that the
proposed Veterinary Technician Program would not be cost effective.
With the fiscal year 1999 proposal, Faulkner proposed instead, to
establish a 2+2 Environmental Science degree program.
The fiscal year 1998 objectives for Alabama Southern Community
College was to have completed, tested, and placed into operation the
chemical, pulp, and paper process laboratories in the areas of (1)
Process Control, (2) Crystallization, (3) Batch Reactor, and (4)
Digester by June, 2000. The Process Controls laboratory is nearly
complete. The others are under design and the project is on-line for
completion as originally proposed.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Funds were appropriated for this grant beginning in fiscal
year 1998. In fiscal years 1998, 1999 and 2000, $500,000 was
appropriated each year. A total of $1,500,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided to support this project?
Answer. No non-Federal funds have been identified to support this
project.
Question. Where is this work to be carried out?
Answer. The project will be conducted at the Faulkner State
Community College Aquaculture Center in Alabama and at the Alabama
Southern Community College Center for Forestry, Paper, and Chemical
Technology.
Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The Alabama Southern Community College project proposal
indicates a two year budget for project completion. The Faulkner State
Community College proposal was for one year only. The objectives have
not yet been met but are well underway.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project had a merit review before it began in fiscal
year 1998. Subsequent projects were peer reviewed by the respective
institutions for the fiscal year 1999 allocation.
environmental research, new york
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the environmental research grant.
Answer. The environmental research in New York has several major
goals. These are: (1) to better understand the impacts of nutrient
flows, principally nitrogen, from agriculture on non-agricultural
ecosystems, forests, wetlands, and water resources in mixed ecosystem
landscapes; (2) to improve knowledge of agricultural contributions to
greenhouse gas emissions and effects of projected climate change on
crop production; and (3) to develop innovative approaches and
technologies for improving the efficiency of agricultural production.
New thrusts include: (1) to improve understanding of the impacts of
land application of biosolids on the sustainability of New York
agriculture and on water quality, and to develop management practices
and guidelines for sustainable use of biosolids in New York
agriculture; and (2) to evaluate spatial and temporal variability of
crop yields within fields and to develop management practices that
increase productivity, increase the efficiency of use of inputs, and
reduce environmental impacts of agriculture.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. Programs supported by the special grant are
multidisciplinary in nature, involving technical scientists from a
range of disciplines, together with social scientists and economists.
Due to the complexity of agriculture and environmental interactions at
all levels, the needed research is complex and requires much time.
Additionally, translation of knowledge from plot or field studies to
larger scales, such as landscape to regional and global, is needed to
provide information that is useful to policy makers.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. One goal of the program is to identify impacts of nitrogen
flows from agricultural lands on adjacent natural ecosystems, forests
and wetlands, and water resources, and to devise management strategies
to minimize these impacts. Leaching of nitrogen from maize based
cropping systems has been shown to be higher when organic sources of
nitrogen, manures and plow-down alfalfa, are used as nitrogen sources
for crop growth compared to use of inorganic fertilizers. A computer-
based nitrogen decision support system to improve recommendations for
on-farm nitrogen management is being used in New York.
A second goal of the program is to investigate several interactions
between agriculture and climate change. Studies of methane fluxes to/
from soils showed that northern hardwood forests are both a source and
a sink for this powerful greenhouse gas and overall may be a net source
of methane. In contrast, upland agricultural systems were consistently
found to be a sink for methane. Use of legume green manures to supply
nitrogen in an organic production system increased methane emissions
two-fold, creating a conflict between a sustainable agriculture
practice and the environment.
No-tillage agriculture was shown to increase preservation of
existing soil organic carbon but accumulation of carbon derived from
crop inputs was higher with conventional tillage. Inputs of carbon to
soils from root exudates and residues were found to be more important
to carbon sequestration in soils than were residues from the tops of
plants.
Soil quality assessments at the Chesapeake farms sustainable
agriculture project on Maryland's Eastern shore, where various cropping
systems are being compared with the conventional corn-soybean rotation,
have shown that soil quality improves as the cropping system becomes
more complex, involves less tillage, and has more organic inputs.
Question. this work been underway and how much has been
appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991
with an appropriation of $297,000. The fiscal years 1992-1993
appropriation was $575,000 per year; $540,000 in fiscal year 1994; and
fiscal years 1995 through 1999, $486,000 each year. The appropriation
for fiscal year 2000 is $400,000. A total of $4,817,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. In fiscal year 1991, Cornell University provided $27,893
and the State of New York provided $118,014. In fiscal year 1992,
Cornell University provided $37,476 and the State of New York $188,915.
In fiscal year 1993, Cornell University provided $13,650 and the State
of New York $243,251. In fiscal year 1994, the State of New York
provided $214,989. In fiscal year 1995, the State of New York provided
$233,085. In fiscal year 1996, the State of New York provided $388,301.
In fiscal year 1999, the State of New York provided in excess of
$400,000 to support this research.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This research is being conducted at Cornell University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original estimate was for a 5-year program and many of
the initial objectives in the nitrogen and climate change areas have
been met. New objectives evolved from the original work and the program
was also oriented to consider broader dimensions of environmental
management, particularly strategies for community-based watershed
management, involving linkage of technical knowledge with social and
local governmental perspectives and needs. Estimated completion dates
for current program elements are:
--Watershed science and management
--Effects of elevated carbon dioxide on crop yield potential
--Remington farms sustainable agriculture project--a 10-year project
--Carbon storage in soils
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project was peer reviewed in 1997 and 1998. Overall,
the project was rated very high. Specific ratings included the
following:
--Outstanding scientific merit.
--Appropriate methodology.
--Excellent previous accomplishments.
--The project has potential for significant impact concerning the
relationship of agriculture to global change.
--The proposal is well conceived and well written.
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK FACTORS/CANCER, NEW YORK
Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Environmental Risk Factors/Cancer, New York, grant.
Answer. The agency has requested the University to submit a renewal
grant proposal.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, and local need for this
research?
Answer. The American Cancer Society estimated that approximately
175,000 women in the United States will be newly diagnosed with breast
cancer during 1999 and that 43,000 will die from this disease. The role
of environmental risk factors, such as pesticides, is of concern to
women, the agricultural community, and policymakers. This project,
emphasizing risk reduction information, will work at filling that void.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original and continuing goals of this research are:
--To establish and expand the database of Critical Evaluations on the
current scientific evidence of carcinogenicity for selected
agricultural chemicals. This will include writing Critical
Evaluations on the breast cancer risk of chemicals used in
agricultural settings and the role of selected agrochemicals in
childhood cancer.
--To communicate effectively information in the database to a variety
of audiences, including the scientific community, Federal
agencies, public health professionals, the agricultural
community aid the public, using printed materials and
electronic formats on the internet.
--To ensure that the public will have access to science-based
information written in non-technical language about
environmental factors and the risk of breast cancer and
childhood cancers.
--To increase the knowledge and use of practical strategies aimed at
breast cancer risk reduction for residents in rural areas.
Efforts to address this objective will include: (1) simple,
attractive, printed educational materials tailored for families
in rural areas; (2) videotape-based educational workshops for
use with groups of rural women.
--To effectively incorporate breast cancer risk reduction messages
into health care and health screening settings in rural areas.
This will include enhancement and adaptation of the BCERF
interactive computer display, developed in this current project
year, for use in health care settings and at cancer screening
events in rural areas.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1997,
and in fiscal years 1997, 1998 and 1999 $100,000 was appropriated per
year, and in fiscal year 2000 $170,000 was appropriated for a total of
$470,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows:
--$150,000 New York State appropriations for fiscal year 1996.
--$250,000 per year in New York State funds was provided for fiscal
years 1977 and 1998.
--$350,000 in New York State funds for 1999 and the same requested
for fiscal year 2000.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. This research and outreach is conducted at Cornell
University. Ithaca, NY.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date or additional or related objectives?
Answer. This was a new project which began in April 1997. Because
of the success of meeting the original objectives in NYS, BCERF efforts
are being continued and directed toward regional efforts. The
anticipated completion date is June 30, 2001.
Objectives met:
--The bibliographic database was established during year one and is
updated and expanded each year. It currently has over 4,000
entries with over 250 added each quarter. Also, it includes
full bibliographies of all pesticide and dietary/lifestyle
scientific critical reviews.
--Critical Evaluations: the breast cancer risk of seven pesticides--
four in fiscal year 1997, three in fiscal year 1998--have been
completed. The completion of two additional Critical
Evaluations is anticipated by the end of the current fiscal
year.
--Science-based information material--fact sheets--have been
developed for the seven pesticides and for four pesticide-
related issues. Also, four fact sheets were developed on diet/
lifestyle breast cancer risk factors, and three on general
information on breast cancer. Eight additional fact sheets are
to be developed in the current fiscal year.
--Two video teleconferences and an in-service have been held and
evaluated. Follow-up telephone surveys of 1997 facilitators at
BCERF satellite video conference downlink sites and
participants at the June 1997 on-campus training program was
completed, and an analysis of response data was initiated.
--The interactive computer Rural Exhibit was completed in 1999 and
evaluated during Summer/Fall 1999.
--Tile BCERF website was revamped in 1997-1998 and relaunched in
September 1998. The number of browsers accessing tile BCERF
home page rose from 380 to 450 hits per month during the summer
of 1998 to 1,053 hits in November 1998 and 3,490 hits in
December 1998. Hits remain high with an average of about 3,000
per month.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. As a relatively new project, a complete evaluation has not
been conducted, although the proposal is currently under review.
Periodic progress reports have been made throughout the year. The
project is moving towards achieving its desired goals. A final
evaluation will be made after June 30, 2001. BCERF has evaluated most
components of the program, with further evaluation planned. To date,
BCERF has done an evaluation of the video teleconferences and in-
service and has had the pesticide fact sheets reviewed by focus group--
breast cancer survivors and women not having breast cancer. The
participants brought a variety of perspectives to the discussion,
providing BCERF with a wealth of important feedback on fact sheets and
educational approach. Some of the conclusions drawn from this
evaluation have already resulted in simple changes made in the
preparation of current fact sheets. Other feedback from this evaluation
will inform planning efforts for the education component in general.
Evaluation played a key role in the development of the interactive
computer rural exhibit. To develop the exhibit, qualitative and
quantitative information was gathered about the knowledge, attitudes
and beliefs of rural women regarding environmental risk factors and
breast cancer. In addition, BCERF conducted brief surveys of rural
women attending several rural conferences and events. The complete
exhibit was tested at two farm shows and the New York State Fair in
Fall 1999, partnering with professionals and organizations, such as
those providing mobile mammography.
To evaluate the value of Critical Evaluations to scientists and
Federal agency personnel, a fax-back survey has been sent. The majority
of respondents 88 percent so far have found the Critical Evaluations to
be relevant to their work.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE PRODUCTS, VERMONT
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the grant.
Answer. Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service has requested the university to submit a grant proposal that
has not yet been received. The research will address the development of
an environmentally friendly wood finish formulated with whey, a
protein-based biopolymer that can replace standard polymer finishes
that emit volatile organic compounds.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. This research addresses a national need to find alternative
wood finishing products that are nontoxic and environmentally
preferable.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. This grant is new and the research will build upon existing
expertise to offer new products with good performance for use in the
furniture and toy manufacturing industries.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2000
and the appropriation for fiscal year 2000 is $170,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. This is a new grant and since the proposal has not yet been
received, the source and amount of non-Federal funds for this research
is not known.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This work will be carried at the University of Vermont.
Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met: What is the
anticipated date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This project is expected to be completed in three years.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the evaluation conducted.
Answer. Since this is a new grant, no evaluation has been
conducted.
EXPANDED WHEAT PASTURE, OKLAHOMA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Expanded Wheat Pasture, Oklahoma grant.
Answer. This project was designed to develop improved
supplementation programs and new systems for technology delivery to
reduce production risk of raising cattle on wheat pasture. The work
involves evaluation of grazing termination date on grain and beef
production, assess the impact of wheat cultural practices, and develop
an economic model to evaluate alternative decisions on grain/beef
production. Additional effort is directed toward development of cool
season perennial forage grasses to complement wheat pasture. The
proposal for fiscal year 2000 has been requested.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that this work addresses
the needs of wheat/cattle producers of Oklahoma as a primary focus.
However, it would appear to have application regionally in adjacent
wheat growing States.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to develop
economically-viable management systems for use of wheat for
supplemental pasture for beef cattle before the crop starts making
grain. This work has already shown how the use of feed supplements can
increase net profit from cattle grazing on wheat pasture. The study has
identified management practices, e.g. date of planting, cultivar
selection, grazing intensity, and date of cattle removal that produce
the optimum grain yield and cattle gain. A Wheat/Stocker Management
Model has been developed as a decision aid to help producers assess
income risk in the operation. Work is underway on a Wheat Grazing
Systems simulation model.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1989
and appropriations were as follows: fiscal year 1989, $400,000; fiscal
year 1990, $148,000; fiscal year 1991, $275,000; fiscal years 1992-
1993, $337,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $317,000, and fiscal years
1995 to 2000, $285,000 each year. A total of $3,524,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $175,796 State appropriations in 1991; $174,074 State
appropriations in 1992; and $236,584 State appropriations in 1993. The
non-Federal support for 1994 was $238,058 for State appropriations.
Funds for 1995 were $275,426, for 1996 were $120,000, for 1997 were
$190,510, for 1998 were $224,500, and for 1999, $222,650.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being done at Oklahoma State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This project started in 1989 with a projection of 10 years
to complete the research objectives. Some objectives are nearing
completion while others will require further study. A number of wheat
cultivars have been identified which will tolerate grazing and still
produce economic grain yields. The grazing cut off date for grain
production has been established. However year to year variation need
additional study in order to develop a reliable decision support
system. The revised projected completion date is 2004.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This program is reviewed annually. Each year's funding
cycle is peer reviewed internally and by the agency National Program
Leaders for scientific merit and relevance. Results from this project
are currently being used by ranchers to help with management decisions
concerning stocker cattle grazed on wheat that will be harvested for
grain. Current work is designed to refine the current information and
identify wheat cultivars and grazing management for optimum economic
return.
EXPERT IPM DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Expert Integrated Pest Management Decision
Support System grant.
Answer. A prototype information and decision support system was
developed in collaboration with Purdue University and the Department of
Energy's Argonne National Laboratory that integrates and manages
information from multiple data sources. Development of this system now
continues with the National Science Foundation Center for Integrated
Pest Management at North Carolina State University. Components of the
Pest Management Information Decision Support System include information
on the United States Environmental Protection Agency review status of
pesticides, crop losses caused by pests, status of minor use
registrations, current research in progress, and priorities of
integrated pest management implementation teams.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The Pest Management Information Decision Support System is
fully operational and serves national, regional, and local needs for
research and extension activities. The Food Quality Protection Act has
been the driving force for the development and usage of this software
program. At the national level, the system provides rapid access for
the United States Department of Agriculture, and Environmental
Protection Agency helping to address pest management concerns and
information to support the regulatory decision making process. It
provides a mechanism for decision transparency and for all stakeholders
to interact with the priority setting process. The ultimate result will
be to help insure that farmers have adequate alternatives for managing
pests at the specific local level.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the Pest Management Information Decision
Support System was to refine the process of identification for
Integrated Pest Management needs of the United States Department of
Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, and States. This goal
reinforces the State and Federal partnerships to disseminate important
pest management information for improved decision making and
environmental quality, and to address future needs. In 1996 and 1997,
the program addressed and responded to the Memorandum of Understanding
and supplemental Memorandum of Understanding between the United States
Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency. The
supplemental Memorandum of Understanding was signed in April, 1996, at
which time there were 58 pesticides and 374 uses identified and
prioritized. Twenty-five minor use crops were identified in the 1997
Pest Management Alternatives Request For Proposals as crops-at-risk due
to regulatory actions. Results were also used to establish priority
work identified for support by the regional Integrated Pest Management
grants program Request For Proposal.
The Pest Management Alternatives Program Work-Bench of the Pest
Management Information Decision Support System was beta tested in 1999
and has been delivered to the public domain and the present product
(data base access) is available on the world wide web at . Pest Management Information Decision Support
System had undergone a complete rewrite during this last year. It has
now been rewritten, using Java and Cold Fusion Structured Query
Language queries, with all data now stored on a Structured Query
Language Windows NT server. This means that no software other than the
standard browser is required to access the information.
The Pest Management Information Decision Support System user
interface has also been completely rewritten. It is a much friendlier
interface, that allows users to search a multitude of specific pest
management databases, either concurrently or separately, by crop, pest
and/or tactic and retrieve data summaries or the entire record from all
of the databases included. Each database now has a specific explanation
of its source, the information contained within, and when last updated.
Finally an automated update retrieval from many of the database sites
such as the Inter-regional Project-4, Pipeline, Crop Profiles, and
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy Pesticide Use Database
has been developed.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. This work began in 1994 with development of the concept and
design, and has proceeded through steps including database
identification and specific development of a prototype and software.
Current development have brought the product to the web and provides
multiple database search capabilities for ease of data access. In
fiscal year 1994, we expended $40,000 of Cooperative State Research,
Education and Extension Service administrative funds and $90,000 from
Science and Education Evaluation Funds to initiate collaborative work
with the Argonne National Laboratory. In fiscal year 1995, we expended
$172,000 as a Cooperative Agreement with Purdue University and Argonne
National Laboratory from the Pest Management Alternative Special Grant
Funds and $5,000 from Pesticide Impact Assessment Program funds. In
fiscal year 1996, we expended $177,000 in a cooperative agreement with
Purdue University and Argonne National Laboratory from Pest Management
Alternative Special Grant Funds, $21,000 from Research, Education and
Economics Mission area Evaluation Funds, and $40,000 from Pesticide
Impact Assessment Program. In fiscal year 1997-1998 we expended
$165,425 and $177,000 to Purdue University and Argonne National
Laboratory. In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, we are expending $177,000 to
North Carolina State University center for Integrated Pest Management
to implement, enhance and maintain the web-based system and provide
access to multiple databases.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. It is difficult for us to estimate the amount of non-
Federal funds supporting the Pest Management Information Decision
Support System. Purdue University, Cornell University and North
Carolina State University have contributed non-Federal resources in the
form of dollars and personnel time. The National Science Foundation
Center for Integrated Pest Management at North Carolina State
University is supported in large part by corporate funds, part of which
have underwritten Center personnel salaries. The informational data
bases, which are accessed by the Pest Management Information Decision
Support System, have been developed and generated by States and
universities and represent considerable investments in time and
resources.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Presently, the bulk of the work is carried out in
Washington, D.C. and in Raleigh, North Carolina. Cooperative State
Research, Education and Extension Service has National Program Leaders
in Integrated Pest Management, Pesticide Impact Assessment Program, and
Inter-regional Project-4 program areas working on the Pest Management
Information Decision Support System. The Center for Integrated Pest
Management at North Carolina State University manages the web server
where the pest management information system is located and is
developing the multiple concurrent database search and decision support
capability. Interaction and information is provided by every State in
our system. We are in the process of strengthening the role of Land
Grant partners in this program and additional database access is being
developed through the Center for Integrated Pest Management, at North
Carolina State University and through a sub-contract with George Mason
University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Our original estimate in 1994 was two-to-three years with
adequate resources to complete developmental work. However, the design
considerations became more complex with the 1996 passage of the Food
Quality Protection Act requiring an expansion and change in information
data bases. In addition, advances in web technology has greatly
expanded the potential and use of the system to all people wanting
information on pesticide use and pest management alternatives.
Additional databases have been added to both the data access and
decision support aspects of the project. The Pest Management
Information Decision Support System team is now working directly with
many data providers and users, including Inter-regional project 4,
National Agriculture Statistics Service, the Cooperative State
Research, Education and Extension Service, Office of Pest Management
Policy, Environmental Protection Agency, commodity groups, and
agribusiness to assure that needed data are available, consistent,
current, and searchable. The Pest Management Information Decision
Support System program is a key component in providing USDA, EPA,
Congress, and the Office of Pest Management Policy with finger-tip
access to new and rapidly changing data bases, making research
information accessible to assist the regulatory decision making
process.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation.
Answer. The Pest Management Information Decision Support System
underwent two reviews in 1997. The first was a formal review of the
entire program in June, 1997 which recommended: (1) focusing the system
on the needs of the Pest Management Alternatives Program, (2) the
timely delivery of a software product to USDA, and (3) the development
of a plan to sustain the system in a user-friendly, widely available
formal. A second review which was conducted in November, 1997, focused
strictly on the Pest Management Alternatives Program Work-Bench
surfaced the following recommendations: (1) to expand the WorkBench
linkages to additional relevant databases, (2) investigate the
potential of placing the system on the World Wide Web for greater
access and utility, (3) market the system to potential users, and (4)
link to high quality databases to support and enhance data integrity of
the WorkBench. In August, 1998 a progress review was conducted to
evaluate the engineered software product and it was determined that a
web accessible multiple database search capability was essential for
the system. A concept review conducted in September, 1998, and at this
review the functionality of a web-based decision support system was
first demonstrated.
FARM AND RURAL FINANCE, ILLINOIS AND ARKANSAS
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the farm and rural business finance program.
Answer. The Center for Farm and Rural Business Finance at the
University of Illinois and the University of Arkansas is supported, in
part, by the Federal funding for this project. The Center conducts a
program of research and information on the financing of farms and rural
businesses in the United States. The plan of work focuses on the
financial management performance of farm and rural businesses,
evaluation of financial markets and credit institutions serving rural
America, and the impacts of public policies and regulations on the
structure and performance of rural financial markets. During the past
year, 17 projects have been conducted through the Center. They address
financial issues facing farmers and rural businesses that range from
financial risks faced by hog producers to farmland turnover rates to
lending trends among large commercial banks. Professional staff at the
two institutions are engaged in both joint and separate projects.
Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The current financial stress in various regions and sectors
of the farm economy, the changing structure within the agricultural
sector, and financial implications of risk management strategies and
technical change have created a national need for this research. The
level of financial stress varies across commodities and with regional
variation in yields and product mix. Analyses are needed to assess the
financial impacts of agricultural policies and programs that provide
various dimensions of the ``safety net.'' Changes to the Federal income
tax, capital gains tax and estate tax provisions can have significant
impacts on owners of agricultural assets. Research is needed to
identify impacts on individuals and those that may affect local
institutions.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal is to assist farmers, ranchers and rural
businesses with research-based information on financial management as
they deal with increasingly complex financial decisions. During this
past year the program has conducted projects on the relationship
between financial risk and farm size, financial aspects of various
production technologies and management practices of small and medium-
sized pork producers, the effect of technical change on rural
commercial bank delivery systems, and regulatory costs in rural
lending. Projects are being completed on the post-acquisition
performance of banks resulting from recent mergers, levels and trends
in small farm and small business lending across different types of
commercial banks, and the measurement and classification of the
financial performance of agribusiness firms. Additional projects have
developed a model of working capital management applicable to a wide
variety of selected agribusiness firms and have identified primary
risks associated with lending to integrated farm production units.
Other projects are measuring the longer term impacts of changes in the
Federal tax laws on the financial performance of Illinois farms,
evaluating the financial characteristics of rural banks and assessing
their competitiveness in rural financial markets, and identifying the
financial characteristics of high performing agricultural banks. A
project at the University of Arkansas has analyzed the effects of
financing in accelerating the cattle cycle.
Question. How long has the work been underway, and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work has been underway since 1992. Appropriations were
$125,000 in fiscal year 1992, $125,000 in fiscal year 1993, $118,000 in
fiscal year 1994, $106,000 per year in fiscal year 1995 through fiscal
year 1997, $87,000 per year in fiscal year 1998, fiscal year 1999 and
fiscal year 2000. Appropriations through fiscal year 2000 total
$947,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal sources and funds provided for this program
in fiscal year 1992 totaled $259,427 with $58,427 in State
appropriations, $189,000 from industry and $12,000 from miscellaneous
sources. In fiscal year 1993, the total was $287,890 with $94,588 in
State appropriations,$133,000 from industry and $25,000 from
miscellaneous sources. In fiscal year 1994, the total was $391,000 with
$221,000 coming from State appropriations, $45,000 from industry and
$125,000 from the National Research Initiative competitive grants
programs. In fiscal year 1995 the total was $185,000 where $46,000 came
from State appropriations, $62,500 from industry and $76,500 from
miscellaneous sources. In fiscal year 1996, the total was $344,000
where $294,000 was appropriated from State sources and $50,000 from
private sources. In fiscal year 1997, $125,000 was appropriated from
State sources, $103,000 was received through a National Research
Initiative grant, and $130,876 was received from the Council on Food
and Agricultural Research. In fiscal year 1998, $176,250 was received
from a Fund for Rural America grant, $65,000 from a CSREES Special
Research Grant, and $20,000 from miscellaneous sources. In fiscal year
1999, $133,500 was received from the Illinois Agricultural Experiment
Station in the form of faculty-researcher salaries; the Arkansas
Agricultural Experiment Station was providing $49,500 in similar
support; and the Illinois Farm Development Authority provided $125,000.
Non-Federal support for fiscal year 2000 has not been identified.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Researchers and professional staff conducting this program
are located at the University of Illinois and the University of
Arkansas.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objectives of the program, as amended with
additional funding and new termination dates now extend to fiscal year
2000. Initial objectives have been met; however changing financial
conditions in the farm and rural business environment continue to add
new dimensions to these original objectives. Anticipated completion
dates of these amended objectives extend through fiscal year 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project.
Provide a summary of the latest evaluation conducted.
Answer. In addition to the scientific and peer reviews conducted at
the institutions, the program is evaluated periodically within the
agency through direct contact with the Director of the Center and the
project leaders, as reports are received, and annually when proposals
are submitted. The latest evaluation occurred in March, 1999 when the
most recent comprehensive report was received. Agency criteria are used
to evaluate the program in terms of whether objectives are relevant and
consistent, appropriate methods are being used, time lines are being
met to a reasonable extent, and results are being disseminated through
reports and scientific publications. The major objectives of the
program are being met and results from specific projects are being
shared through regional research committees and other outlets as they
evolve. The latest evaluation shows 18 separate projects underway with
many nearing completion. Results are applicable to issues within the
rural finance community. A National Symposium for Agricultural Finance
Executives provides a valuable service and visibility for the Center.
The program has produced an impressive number of publications. Articles
have been published in leading U.S. agricultural and finance journals
and in international outlets.
FEED BARLEY FOR RANGELAND CATTLE, MONTANA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Feed Barley for Rangeland Cattle grant.
Answer. This project supports research on the nutritional value of
barley cultivars as feed for beef cattle. This research will assist the
breeding and selection of superior barley types that can be more
competitive with other feed grains and improve farmer income from
barley crops grown in rotational systems in the Northern Great Plains.
The project was subjected to a merit review.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. Barley is grown extensively as a feed grain in the United
States. Based both upon chemical analysis and the experience of some
cattle feeders, the principal investigator believes barley should have
a feed value on a par with corn or wheat. However, currently barley is
listed as inferior to both corn and wheat in feed hand books and is,
therefore, discounted in the feed market. Comprehensive feeding studies
of various barley types will be conducted to document the value as a
feed grain for beef cattle.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to determine the
true relative feeding value of barley for feeder cattle, and thereby
improve the economic return to barley producers.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1996
with an appropriation of $250,000; for fiscal year 1997, $500,000; for
fiscal years 1998 and 1999, $600,000 each year; and for fiscal year
2000, $637,500. The total appropriation is $2,587,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-Federal funds for this project were $160,000 in 1996,
$174,500 in 1997, and $168,000 in 1998. No information is available for
1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at Montana State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Completion of the original objectives is anticipated in
fiscal year 2001. Integrating of findings into management systems is
expected by fiscal year 2005 with outreach and information
dissemination completed by fiscal year 2010.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project is evaluated annually. It undergoes a
scientific merit review by two Department Heads and three peer faculty
members. It is reviewed again by a CSREES National Program Leader upon
submission to the agency.
FLORICULTURE, HAWAII
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the floriculture program grant.
Answer. The research carried out with these funds involves
wholesale and retail U.S. and Japan market research, development of new
varieties for aesthetic values and pest resistance, and pest management
strategies to meet quarantine needs and consumer expectations.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The researcher believes the tropical cut flower and foliage
industry in Hawaii, which includes anthurium, orchids, flowering
gingers, bird of paradise, heliconia, protea, and cut foliage is worth
over $50 million primarily in out-of-state sales. Development of
disease resistant cultivars and quarantine pest management strategies
that reduce pesticide usage are high priority issues at the national
level.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the research was to develop superior
Hawaii anthuriums, orchids, protea, and exotic tropical flower
varieties with disease resistance, particularly to anthurium blight
which devastated the Hawaii anthurium industry through the mid-1980's
and reduced Hawaii's market share. Additionally, research focused on
development of post-harvest handling practices and quarantine pest
control. To date, a new anthurium cultivar has been patented and
released. Additional blight resistant cultivars are being propagated
and tested by the anthurium industry. Disease resistant protea
germplasm has been obtained from South Africa and is being used in the
protea breeding program. A post-harvest hot water dip treatment has
been developed and is being used commercially on tolerant cut-flower
species to meet quarantine requirements.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1989, $300,000; fiscal years 1990-1993, $296,000
per year; fiscal year 1994, $278,000; and fiscal years 1995-2000
$250,000 each year. A total of $3,262,000 has been appropriated since
1989.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: State appropriations of $87,937 in 1995, approximately
$77,000 in 1996, $56,680 in 1997, and $62,600 in 1998 for a total of
$207,217 since 1995.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted by the University of Hawaii at
Manoa and Hilo.
Question. When was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The objectives in the original project were to maintain
Hawaii floricultural industry competitive. This objective continues to
be the principal direction for the projects. Because the industry and
the markets are changing pests are becoming either resistant or newer
strains. And quarantines are changing with technology the objective
remains valid.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The individual projects funded under this Special Research
Grant are evaluated through merit review to ensure that good science is
being used. This evaluation is the major tool used to award funds to
the projects.
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE POLICY INSTITUTE, IOWA AND MISSOURI
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done at the food and agriculture policy institute program.
Answer. The Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute--FAPRI--
was established by Iowa State University and the University of
Missouri, Columbia, in 1984. The purpose of the institute is to conduct
comprehensive analysis and disseminate results about the economic
impacts of U.S. food, farm, and trade policies to agricultural
producers, agribusinesses, and public policymakers. Iowa State conducts
research on the economic interrelationships within and between domestic
and foreign food and agricultural markets from the farm gate to market
destinations; develops and maintains databases and analytical support
systems to facilitate the analysis of agricultural and trade policy
issues; and evaluates the impacts of U.S. and foreign commodity supply,
demand, and public policy programs on agricultural trade. The
University of Missouri maintains models of the domestic agricultural
economy and directs its efforts primarily to the analysis of domestic
policy issues. The two universities maintain linkages with a number of
other universities who provide data and analytical support to the
system. The universities maintain a comprehensive analytical modeling
system of the U.S. and international food and agricultural sectors to
evaluate near- and long-term economic implications of alternative farm
policies for the basic commodities. Each year, and more often if
conditions require, the system is used to provide economic information
on potential impacts out to 10 years in the future of farm policies on
farm prices, income, output, government program costs and means to
enhance the management of farm programs at the national level.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The Nation's agricultural sector and its components are
subject to numerous Federal policies and programs. FAPRI is the only
publicly supported, non-Federal organization with the analytical
capability to assess and evaluate the numerous public policies and
programs affecting the agricultural sector and report results to a
broad constituency including farmers, agribusinesses, and Federal and
State policymakers.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal was to develop the analytical capability
to assess and evaluate U.S. farm policies on the U.S. agricultural
sector and disseminate this information to farmers, farm and other
agricultural organizations and public policymakers. The mission has
been expanded to include assessment of trade and environmental policy
impacts and their interaction with the agricultural sector at national,
regional, and farm levels. The models in place are also used to assess
fiscal and monetary policy implications and impacts of new technologies
such as biotechnological innovations on the agricultural sector.
Both institutions maintain large econometric models and data sets
which are regularly updated to analyze farm and trade policy
alternatives and the impacts of various programs on the several sub
sectors of the agricultural economy. This update was especially
valuable for conducting analysis to assess policy options for the 1996
farm bill. During the past year, the FAPRI completed 35-40 studies
addressing policy issues such as assessments of the 1996 Farm Bill,
alternative ethanol programs, USDA's proposed milk market order reform,
U.S.-Canada agricultural trade, the importance of fast track to U.S.
agriculture economic recession in the Middle East and the economic
meltdown in Russia. Numerous studies were completed addressing
improvements made to the empirical modeling system to improve domestic
and international policy capabilities. The FAPRI staff has made
numerous public appearances throughout the U.S. to agricultural groups
and Congressional committees and Executive branch groups addressing
policy issues.
Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal years 1984-1985, $450,000 per year; fiscal years 1986-
1987, $357,000 per year; fiscal year 1988, $425,000; fiscal year 1989,
$463,000; fiscal year 1990, $714,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $750,000
per year; fiscal year 1994, $705,000; fiscal years 1995-1996, $850,000
each year, and fiscal year 1997-2000, $800,000. The total amount
appropriated is $11,171.000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $260,355 State appropriations, $113,565 industry, and
$37,913 miscellaneous for a total of $411,833 in 1991; $321,074 State
appropriations, $51,500 industry, and $35,100 miscellaneous for a total
of $407,674 in 1992; $234,796 State appropriations and $70,378 industry
for a total of $305,174 in 1993; $78,286 State appropriations, $43,925
industry, and $29,750 miscellaneous in 1994 for a total of $151,961 in
1994; $80,155 State appropriations, $37,128 industry, and $42,236
miscellaneous for a total of $159,519 for 1995; $124,123 in State
appropriations with no other funding for 1996; $79,000 in State
appropriations, $50,000 industry and $25,000 miscellaneous for a total
of $154,000 in 1997; and $88,800 State appropriations, $75,200
industry, and $34,687 miscellaneous for a total of $198,687 in 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The program is carried out at the Center for Agriculture
and Rural Development, Iowa State University and the Center for
National Food and Agricultural Policy, University of Missouri.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. While individual projects show progress towards achieving
the goal, this is a continuing program of research and analysis for the
purpose of assessing farm and related policy actions and proposed
actions likely to affect the agricultural sector and its components.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The annual proposal is carefully reviewed for adherence to
stated objectives and progress before the special research grant is
awarded. It is also peer reviewed prior to its submission. No formal
evaluation of this program has been conducted.
FOOD IRRADIATION, IOWA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the food irradiation grant.
Answer. Since the Linear Accelerator Facility was placed in
operation in March 1993, studies on the effect of irradiation on shelf-
life extension, safety and quality of ground beef, beef steaks, ham,
pork chops from loins, chicken breasts, and turkey have been conducted.
Studies combining irradiation with high hydrostatic pressure and
cooking, using whole chicken breasts, turkey and ham, have been
conducted to determine the combination of these treatments that will
yield a shelf-stable product while maintaining high eating quality.
Several studies were conducted to determine whether consumers can
detect a difference between irradiated and non-irradiated ground beef
patties. Experiments were also conducted to investigate consumer
acceptance of pork products irradiated to prevent trichinosis. Test
markets of irradiated chicken breasts were conducted to determine
consumers' willingness to pay for irradiated products. Studies on the
effect of packaging materials on quality of irradiated meat have been
completed. Quality changes in ready-to-eat meat and poultry products
irradiated to control Listeria are under investigation. The fiscal year
2000 funds are supporting research from May 1, 2000 through June 30,
2001.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes consumers' attention and
concern about the safety of fresh meat and poultry has increased with
recent outbreaks of foodborne illness from E. coli 0157:H7 and Listeria
monocytogenes. The meat industry has also expressed interest regarding
the quality of irradiated products, and how this process can be used to
yield high quality fresh meats and ready-to-eat products that are free
of pathogens. The recent massive recall of over 50 million pounds of
frankfurters and luncheon meats due to illness caused by Listeria
monocytogenes contamination has resulted in huge economic losses.
Additionally, researchers from eight other research institutes have
used the irradiation facility for research projects. Thus, the
principal researcher believes this research to be of national, regional
and local need.
Question. What was the original goal of the research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the research was to generate knowledge
necessary to develop a research and technology transfer program leading
to commercial use of irradiation of foods, whereby consumers would be
provided with food products with enhanced safety. The effectiveness of
irradiation, using an electron beam accelerator, in destroying known
pathogenic bacteria in pork and beef has been determined. Mathematical
models have been developed to predict the growth of bacteria in low-
dose irradiated ground pork. Demonstration of irradiation technology
has been presented to some commercial firms, and plans are being
developed for some large scale test markets.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991
when $100,000 was appropriated for this project. The appropriations for
fiscal years 1992 and 1993 were $237,000 per year; fiscal year 1994,
$223,000; fiscal years 1995-1997, $201,000 each year; and fiscal years
1998-2000, $200,000 per year. A total of $2,000,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The project received $1,037,270 in State of Iowa funds--$1
million of which was for capital construction--in fiscal year 1991;
$37,942 in State funds and $67,800 in industry grants in fiscal year
1992; $68,897 in State funds, $78,300 in industry grants and $9,666 in
user fees in fiscal year 1993; $70,652 in State funds, $35,420 in
industry grants and $47,788 in user fees in fiscal year 1994; $72,772
in State funds, $100,000 in industry grants and $55,211 in user fees in
fiscal year 1995; $81,540 in State funds, $115,300 in industry grants
and $50,963 in user fees in fiscal year 1996; and $77,963 in State
funds, $253,450 in industry grants and $46,550 in user fees in fiscal
year 1997; and $100,200 in State funds, $205,900 in industry grants and
$36,200 in user fees in fiscal year 1998; and $125,000 in State funds,
$213,800 in industry grants and $34,900 in user fees in fiscal year
1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at Iowa State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
Answer. The principal investigator anticipates that the project 19s
original objectives will be met within a few years after the USDA final
rules are issued for ready-to-eat meat and poultry products.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. A review of the proposal supporting the fiscal year 1999
appropriation was conducted on February 24, 1999. Previous studies
funded under this project have provided useful information toward
understanding how irradiation can be useful in eliminating or reducing
foodborne pathogens in meat products. It is anticipated that the
proposed research will continue to further the understanding of how
irradiation can be used to improve shelf-life and enhance safety of
meats and meat products.
FOOD MARKETING POLICY CENTER, CONNECTICUT
Question. Please provide a description of the research done under
the Food Marketing Policy Center grant.
Answer. The Food Marketing Policy Center was established in 1988 at
the University of Connecticut at Storrs. The Center seeks to improve
the performance of the food production and marketing system by
conducting research on food and agricultural marketing and related
policy questions. The Center is primarily an economic research
organization, but it conducts interdisciplinary research as appropriate
and it communicates results to the public. Key users include farm and
consumer organizations, agricultural business firms, public agencies,
State legislatures, and the U.S. Congress. The research proposal was
subject to an administrative review and a peer review by the university
prior to submission to CSREES.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The research addresses an ongoing national need to monitor
the performance of the U.S. food system and to recommend policies that
improve performance for the benefit farmers, merchants, processors, and
consumers.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The ongoing research goal is to identify marketing problems
and assess alternatives that improve economic performance of the U.S.
agricultural and food marketing sector. The Center serves as a core
research group for Regional Research Project NE-165, Private
Strategies, Public Policies, and Food System Performance. The research
agenda includes industrial organization, strategic marketing, economics
of food safety, cooperatives, and public policy including antitrust and
regulation.
The Center is a prolific provider of high quality theoretical and
empirical work, and makes significant scientific, management, and
policy contributions. The Center has prepared about 50 working papers,
40 policy research reports, 20 policy issue papers, 8 books and
numerous chapters, a number of MS and PhD theses, and has distributed
scientifically important research articles to researchers, industry,
Federal and State legislators, and decision makers.
This grant annually supports ten to fifteen research projects in
two problem areas: impacts of changes in strategies, technologies,
consumer behavior and policies on the economic performance of the food
system, and impacts of private and public strategies on improvements in
food safety and quality. Projects include competitive strategy analysis
of cooperatives and investor-owned firms; firm dominance in food
manufacturing; advertising; mergers, product relatedness and
performance outcomes; effects of market structure and concentration on
promotional activity; testing theories of oligopoly conduct;
relationships between market structure, firm position and price levels;
strategic responses to food safety and nutritional regulation; and
trade agreement effects on food quality and trade.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1988, $150,000; fiscal year 1989, $285,000; fiscal
year 1990, $373,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $393,000 per year; fiscal
year 1994, $369,000; fiscal years 1995-1998, $332,000 each year; and
fiscal years 1999-2000, $400,000 a year. A total of $4,484,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are State appropriations as follows: $234,259 in fiscal year 1991;
$231,741 in fiscal year 1992; $201,288 in fiscal year 1993; $234,557 in
fiscal year 1994; $219,380 in fiscal year 1995; $134,399 in fiscal year
1996; $135,490 in fiscal year 1997; $164,772 in fiscal year 1998; and
$163,895 in fiscal year 1999.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being carried out at the University of
Connecticut and the University of Massachusetts.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives if the projects? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1987 was for 24 months. According
to the principal researcher, the objective of conducting policy-
oriented research on food manufacturing and distribution industries to
assist State and Federal policy makers in improving the performance of
the food system is still an ongoing public concern, given increasing
levels of concentration in food processing. The current phase will be
completed in 2003.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in April
1999, as it evaluated the 1999 project proposal, and determined that
``the PI and associated researchers are nationally and internationally
recognized and are clearly competent to execute this project. Funded
research will take place at the Center . . . and in collaboration with
researchers at the London Business School, University of Nebraska,
Rutgers University, Montana State University, and USDA.'' The proposal
also was subjected to peer review by experts with scientific knowledge
and technical expertise.
FOOD PROCESSING CENTER, NEBRASKA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the food processing center grant.
Answer. The University of Nebraska Food Processing Center has been
conducting short-term, highly applied research projects to assist small
and mid-sized food processing companies and entrepreneurs to develop or
improve processes and products and to develop new food processing
enterprises. Projects were selected based on the estimated economic
impact of the technical assistance or the criticality of the technical
assistance to the future of the firm or venture. Priorities were placed
on projects relating to the safety of the food product or process and
to the fulfillment of regulatory mandates such as nutrition labeling,
use of approved and effective ingredients, and adherence to regulations
imposed by foreign governments. In addition, several research projects
were conducted to improve or assess the quality, extend the shelf-life,
or assess or improve the processing efficiency of specialty food
products which impacted several processors or used alternative
agricultural products.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes the primary impact of
this project will be statewide. Small and mid-sized food processing
companies and entrepreneurs have limited technological capabilities for
addressing issues related to product development, process development,
product and process evaluation, food safety, quality assurance, and
regulatory mandates. The short-term research and technology transfer
projects conducted as part of this overall project will aid these
companies in appropriately addressing these oftentimes complicated
issues.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the research, as stated previously, is to
assist small and mid-sized food processing companies and entrepreneurs
to develop or improve processes and products and to develop new food
processing enterprises. Technological evaluations were conducted for 89
individuals or companies interested in developing new food processing
businesses. These evaluations included formulations, processes,
processing equipment, packaging, shelf-life, sensory, nutritional
attributes, microbiological quality, regulatory considerations, and
other factors. Additionally, microbiological analyses, shelf-life
assessments, sanitation audits, and nutritional analyses were conducted
for numerous Nebraska food companies.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1992.
The appropriations were $50,000 per year for fiscal years 1992-1993;
$47,000 for fiscal year 1994; and $42,000 for fiscal years 1995-2000
each year. A total of $399,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The Food Processing Center received $402,389 in State funds
and $1,993,914 in food industry grants and miscellaneous sources from
1992 through 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at the University of Nebraska.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
Answer. Because this project supports ongoing technical assistance
to clients, the objectives are ongoing.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of the
proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual basis.
A review of the proposal was conducted on March 31,1999. Progress under
previous grants for this project appears to be satisfactory, with
numerous examples of assistance cited and summaries of short-term
projects provided by the principal investigator.
FOOD QUALITY, ALASKA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Food Quality, Alaska grant.
Answer. Research will be aimed at establishing the Salmon Quality
Implementation Project. The project has two parts. The first part is
the evaluation, design, and implementation of a voluntary quality seal
that can be attached to salmon that meet the existing standards for
premium and number one grade. The second part is a series of workshops
and training sessions on salmon quality handling and maintenance for
workers at all levels of the industry, from harvesting to retail.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The seafood industry is Alaska's largest employer and main
source of revenue in many communities along its 38,000 miles of
coastline. The salmon fishery is second only to groundfish in providing
the most value in the industry. It is the mainstay of many traditional,
family-owned businesses. The salmon industry is regional, involving
thousands of fishermen and processing workers from Washington State,
Oregon, California and throughout the nation that come to Alaska to
participate in the fishery. In recent years, the Alaska salmon industry
has suffered economically from increased competition from international
salmon farmers, mainly in Norway and Chile. They have made great
inroads in many traditional markets, surpassed Alaska in salmon
production, and now set the product standard in the marketplace. One
key for American businesses to recapture and strengthen their salmon
markets is to guarantee and promote the quality of wild Alaska salmon.
This project will provide the industry with the research and
information needed to accomplish this.
Question. What was the original goal of the research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to ensure a
consistent and predictable level of handling and quality for Alaska
seafood. In doing so, the project will help Alaska seafood processors
strengthen or maintain their place in domestic and international
markets. Because this is a new grant, no progress has yet been
reported.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999
and the appropriation for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 $350,000 each for
a total of $700,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The State of Alaska, the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
and the industry will contribute considerable personnel hours to
perform the work described in the application. The State will
contribute the time of several staff people to research and help
establish the voluntary quality seal program. Nine hours a week of
staff time through the end of the fiscal year (31 weeks) would account
for approximately $10,000. The Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute will
have a staff person set up training workshops throughout Alaska.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work will be administered at the University of Alaska
Fairbanks. Field work will be carried out in numerous Alaska fishing
communities.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the quality and
handling training portion of the project is July 1, 2000. The
anticipated completion date for the voluntary quality seal portion of
the project is December 31, 2000. The project managers will able to
report at that time on their success at meeting project objectives.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The proposal received in support of the fiscal year 1999
appropriation was reviewed for merit by a CSREES specialist on August
27, 1999.
FOOD SAFETY, ALABAMA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Food Safety, Alabama grant.
Answer. Auburn Research Centers Food Safety Program is developing a
method of food inspection that involves the placement of a sensor chip
on food items. The goal is for these chips to automatically inventory
and assess the safety at any point from source to consumption of
appropriate fresh food products sold in the U.S.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. Most food-borne illness can be attributed to bacteria. The
sensor chips developed at Auburn University will target detection of
the bacteria that causes most of these illnesses. This technology could
result in financial savings nationally, regionally, and locally through
the prevention of food-borne illness and its related costs. Up to 33
million Americans become ill each year from food borne disease.
Estimates indicate that as many as 9,000 of these individuals will die
with another one million suffering permanent disabilities. The USDA
estimates that foodborne illness costs the U.S. economy $14.2 billion
in lost productivity annually. This project will improve the safety of
our food supply chain leading to an improved quality of life for every
citizen and resident of the United States. In addition to these costs
to the public and the nation, the costs to industry of settling civil
litigation due to foodborne disease can be immense. The 1993 Jack-in-
the-Box hamburger incident, which infected 433 individuals, resulted in
lawsuit settlements of $126 million dollars. This research when
implemented should greatly reduce the incidence of foodborne illness.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this project is to reduce the
incidence of food-borne illness through the use of a sensor chip that
will assess the safety of food items as they move through the food
chain. The research will be conducted through June 2000 so the results
will be available after that time. Already to date, the researchers
have demonstrated a new method for the detection of Salmonella bacteria
that has the potential to greatly reduce detection times. Current
industrial methods require that a sample of suspect food be taken to
the lab where tests require a minimum of 6 to 48 hours to determine a
food is safe to eat. The new technology can identify harmful levels of
Salmonella bacteria in a few minutes and will be packaged as a portable
hand-held unit that may be used on the food production line.
Additionally, Auburn University has demonstrated a working stamp size
radio frequency identification sensor tag that can be used to
automatically inventory and trace food within seconds. This tag stores
information from farm to its final destination and can be interrogated
to rapidly provide information to identify the source of a
contamination or food problem should it be detected at a latter date
downstream.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in June, 1999. The
appropriation for fiscal year 1999 was $300,000 and for fiscal year
2000 is $446,250. A total of $746,250 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Non-Federal State funds of $577,350 have been allocated to
additionally sponsor the research in fiscal year 2000.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at Auburn University, through
the Auburn Research Center for Detection and Food Safety.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
will be one year following the date of the award. The award date was
June 15, 1999. Already the project has achieved over 50 percent of the
first year objectives.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project has been underway for less than 6 months.
Normally evaluations are conducted on an annual basis which would make
the next evaluation due after June 2000.
FOOD SYSTEMS RESEARCH GROUP, WISCONSIN
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the Food Systems Research Group program.
Answer. The Group conducts research on contemporary issues
affecting the organization and competitiveness of the U.S. food system
in domestic and international markets. The issues include new
technologies, market structure, firm behavior, and government policies
and programs. Studies have been completed on pricing of cheddar cheese,
fed cattle and hogs; changes in private label product markets; causes
of structural change in the flour milling, soybean oil milling, wet
corn milling, cottonseed milling, beef packing, and broiler processing
industries; competition in U.S. food markets; and the relationship
between U.S. food market structure and the industry's performance in
global markets. The research proposal was subject to an administrative
review and a peer review by the university prior to submission to
CSREES.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that the U.S. food system
is changing rapidly in response to a large number of global economic,
social, and technological changes. Research is needed to determine the
effects of these changes on the system's organization and performance,
and to ascertain needed adjustments in public policies based upon sound
research. There is a national need to assess and evaluate the
organization and performance of the Nation's food industry to ensure
that it continues to satisfy performance expectations of farmers and
consumers and adheres to acceptable standards of conduct. In spite of
the growing concentration in food production-processing and increasing
public policy questions concerning the performance of this industry,
few organizations like the Food Systems Research Group are providing
research needed for public and private decision making.
Question. What was the original goal of this research, and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal was to assess and evaluate the
organization and performance of the U.S. food industry and provide
recommendations for improvements. Recent research developed models to
estimate allocative efficiency in broiler, beef and pork subsectors;
allocative inefficiency appears in all three because participants do
not adequately anticipate dynamic market changes; vertical integration
in broilers has greatly improved production efficiency but not
allocative efficiency. The strategic behavior of Wisconsin agribusiness
firms was documented in three case studies: one firm operates in the
mature artificial breeding industry; the other two deal with relatively
high input costs for cheese production. Other work continues to focus
on the impact of ``tough competition'' on industry performance. In
1996, the project published its analysis showing manipulation of prices
on the National Cheese Exchange by Kraft General Foods. Subsequently,
USDA discontinued using Exchange prices in calculating basic formula
milk prices, the Exchange closed, and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange
opened a new cheese market. In December 1998, the University was able
to publish additional materials previously held back by legal
proceedings.
The project has completed numerous studies on economic structure
and performance issues of the U.S. food manufacturing and distribution
system. Basic research is conducted on market theories; effects of
mergers, new technologies, and firm conduct on industry structure and
organization; factors affecting industry prices, profits, efficiency
and progressiveness; and impact of public policies and regulations on
food system organization and performance.
Question. How long has this work been underway, and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal years 1976-1981, $150,000 per year; fiscal years 1982-
1985, $156,000 per year; fiscal years 1986-1989, $148,000 per year;
fiscal year 1990, $219,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $261,000 per year;
fiscal year 1994, $245,000; fiscal years 1995-1998, $221,000 per year;
fiscal year 1999, $225,000; and fiscal year 2000, $425,000. A total of
$4,897,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: State appropriations of $120,304 in 1991; $119,448 in
1992; $85,188 in 1993; $96,838 in 1994; $59,435 in 1995; $50,636 in
1966; $56,421 in 1997; $64,004 in 1998; and $75,115 in 1999.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The grant supports research at the University of Wisconsin,
Madison.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1976 was for a period of 36
months. The current phase of the program will be completed in fiscal
year 2003.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in July
1999, as it evaluated the 1999 project proposal, and concluded: ``The
Food Systems Research Group at the University of Wisconsin does
excellent research on structure, conduct and performance of selected
segments of the food industry and publishes in respected journals.
Researchers have won many professional awards. Much of the work
provides empirical tests of competing theories. In spite of the growing
concentration in food production-processing and increasing public
policy questions concerning the performance of this industry, few
organizations like the University of Wisconsin are providing research
needed for public and private decision making.''
FORAGES FOR ADVANCED LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION, KENTUCKY
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the grant.
Answer. The Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension
Service has requested the university to submit a grant proposal that
has not yet been received.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The need for this research is to provide improved forages/
livestock management systems for Kentucky and adjacent areas.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research is to improve the
economics of livestock production through the use of advanced
production systems.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2000
and the appropriation for fiscal year 2000 is $212,500.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. This is a new project and no non-Federal funds have been
provided to date.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted at the University of Kentucky
Research Station.
Question. When was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
is fiscal year 2004.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency has not yet received the project proposal. It
will be reviewed and evaluated prior to awarding fiscal year 2000
appropriations.
FORESTRY RESEARCH, ARKANSAS
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the Forestry Research grant.
Answer. The Arkansas Forest Resources Center offers programs of
research, education, and outreach to the landowners of Arkansas and the
surrounding region. This has been accomplished through continuing
education events for landowners, the development of a series of
distance-learning tutorials, and the funding of 20 assistantships for
the first two classes of graduate students in the new forest resources
master's program. A partial list of workshops includes: Uneven-aged
Silviculture of Loblolly and Shortleaf Pine Forest Types, Environmental
Law & Policy, Timber Income Tax Update, Thinning Methods and
Operations, Introduction to Arc View 3.0, Estate Planning, Forest
Finance Applications: Basic Tools for Daily Practice, and Opportunities
in Forest Regeneration. The educational thrust has combined Center and
private dollars to establish one of only three of the country's Arc
View Learning Centers for natural resources. To better provide the
highly educated professionals needed in the natural resources
professions, educational tutorials are being developed in dendrology-
tree ID, plant morphology, silvics--that aid in the (1) transfer of
students in community colleges to institutions with forest resources
offerings, and (2) forest resources education of non-majors at
institutions without forest resources faculty. Furthermore, the
University of Arkansas activated a new Master of Science program in the
Fall 1998.
Research projects address issues of species diversity, richness,
redundance, and the resilience of disturbed and undisturbed hardwood
stands of the Mississippi River floodplain. Furthermore, research has
indicated that neotropical migratory birds are indicators of ecosystem
health. Factors influencing their breeding range, include habitat
destruction/alteration and forest fragmentation. Thus, issues of re-
establishment and structure of hardwood stands are important for
timber, non-timber values, and the quality of life enjoyed regionally,
nationally, and internationally. Also, other projects are contributing
to the development of (1) a biological control agent for the southern
pine beetle, (2) alternative forest crops for the economically-
depressed Delta region, and (3) technologies for enhanced fiber and
wood production from nonindustrial and industrial lands. Newer projects
include an important regional social science study of the resource
ethical values held by people of the southern United States and a
comprehensive study for forest growth and yield.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national, regional, and local need for this
research?
Answer. With the reduced levels of production of wood products from
the Northwest, southern forests are increasingly having to produce a
major portion of wood products for the United States. This increased
demand and production make it critical that the forestry community
understand the possible environmental effects of forestry practice.
Social implications of the conflicts between forest production and
environmental quality will become more and more important.
Collectively, the projects address the sustainable management of
southern forests.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the research is to develop alternative forest
management strategies for achieving multi-resource objectives; i.e.,
production of timber, wildlife, recreation and other values of the
forest on private industrial and nonindustrial forest lands and public
lands. Significant progress has been made in several areas. Some
examples include: developing intensive fiber farming systems as
alternatives to soybeans for Mississippi Delta farmers, taking the
first step toward biological control of the southern pine beetle by
discovering the nutrient needs of predators of the beetle so predators
can be grown and studied in artificial cultures. The first survey of
nonindustrial landowners in Arkansas for 15 years has been conducted.
The survey shows that because of the average age of landowners, 60+
years, there will be a massive change in ownership in the next 10-20
years. Landowners continue to not be aware of assistance programs. The
survey also indicated a concern about government programs and possible
intervention on private land. This information will be useful in
understanding future timber supply trends from private holdings and in
the design of assistance and educational programs.
Ongoing projects include a broad array of topics, competitively
awarded within the Center. These include best management practices,
ecological characteristics, effects of different forest management
regimes, stream-sided buffer zone effectiveness, effects of winter
logging, and secondary processing efficiency.
Question. How long has the work been under-way and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows:
Grant
Grant Year Received
1994.......................................................... $470,000
1995.......................................................... 523,000
1996.......................................................... 523,000
1997.......................................................... 523,000
1998.......................................................... 523,000
1999.......................................................... 523,000
2000.......................................................... 523,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 3,608,000
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-fiscal funding and its source provided to this
grant in 1994 was $411,726 State appropriations and $380,000 industry
for a total of $791,726; $491,301 State appropriations and $785,262
industry for a total of $1,276,563 for 1995; a total of $695,204 from
State and industry sources for 1996; a total of $1,115,341 from these
sources in 1997; and an estimated total of $1,000,000 for 1998. For
1999, the State legislature appropriated approximately $850,000 above
the 1998 level.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The Arkansas Forest Resources Center is administered from
the School of Forest Resources on the campus of the University of
Arkansas at Monticello. Individual studies are being conducted at the
University of Arkansas at Fayetteville and several locations across the
State.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Grants were received 1994-1999 with funds distributed for
use over the 3 to 5 years following the activation year. Projects are
on schedule; work from 1994 and 1995 funding are nearing completion.
Forestry research is long term. Center objectives and selected projects
will be continued beyond the life of individual grants using the
infrastructure and capacity developed with these Special Research
Grants.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of the project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. In 1991, an agency team visited the University and reviewed
faculty qualifications, supporting sources, and the feasibility of the
proposal. The team exit report indicated the faculty was highly
capable, the infrastructure needed strengthening, and the proposal
concepts were feasible. Since 1991, there has not been a formal program
review. A review planned for the year 2000 has been rescheduled for
2001 because of a change in forest resources leadership at the
University.
FRUIT AND VEGETABLE MARKET ANALYSIS, ARIZONA AND MISSOURI
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the fruit and vegetable market analysis program.
Answer. The purpose is to provide timely knowledge and analysis of
the impacts of trade, environmental, monetary, and other public
policies and programs upon the Nation's fruit and vegetable industry to
farmers, agribusinesses, and policymakers through a program of
empirical assessment and evaluation.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The U.S. fruit and vegetable sector is experiencing
increased growth from greater domestic and export demand. However, the
growth of this sector depends upon its ability to compete domestically
and internationally and to conform with the regulatory environment in
which it operates. This program of research provides increasingly
critical information to farmers and policymakers on the implications
and impacts of various policies and programs such as environmental,
trade, labor, and food safety. It is the only such program providing
analysis of the total U.S. sector.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal is to develop the analytical capability to assess
and evaluate public policies and programs impacting the U.S. fruit and
vegetable industry and disseminate the results to policy makers,
industry organizations, producers, and other users. Proposals have been
submitted that outline long-range plans and specific projects for
funding. Models have been developed for 18 major (as measured in
production, consumption, and trade) U.S. fruits and vegetables
representing 80 percent of the farm value of the U.S. fruit and
vegetable industry. Trade models for those commodities with a
significant import and/or export sector will also be developed. These
models feed in to a larger food and agricultural sector model to
support analysis of cross commodity and policy effects.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994.
The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $329,000; for fiscal years
1995-1998, $296,000 each year; and for fiscal years 1999, $320,000; and
for fiscal year 2000, $320,000. A total of $2,153,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funding and its source provided to this
grant in 1994 was $50,073 State appropriations and $11,000 industry for
a total of $61,073; $21,876 State appropriations and $36,624 industry
for a total of $58,500 for 1995; a total of $62,400 from State and
industry sources expected for 1996; and $50,000 each year from these
sources in 1997 and 1998.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The work is being carried out at Arizona State University
and the University of Missouri.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The university researchers anticipate that work will
support ongoing, changing projects to look at the impact of various
public policy proposals on the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. We have conducted no formal evaluation. However annual
proposals are peer reviewed for scientific merit and relevance; also
each annual budget proposal is carefully reviewed and work progress is
compared with prior year's objectives. Informal discussions with
congressional staff indicate that the analyses are extremely useful.
GENERIC COMMODITY PROMOTION, NEW YORK
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the generic commodity promotion program.
Answer. The grant supports, in part, the National Institute on
Commodity Promotion Research and Evaluation which provides objective
analyses of national and State commodity checkoff programs designed to
enhance domestic and export demand for U.S. agricultural products.
``Checkoff'' programs provide funds from producers to pay for
advertizing and promotional programs. The overall project proposal was
peer reviewed at the university level; a competitive peer review
process is used to select specific research projects.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher states that producers are
contributing about $1 billion annually to commodity research and
promotion funds designed to expand the domestic and export markets for
their products. The number of commodity groups participating and the
size of the funds available could continue to grow. The 1996 FAIR Act
requires all federally-constituted research and promotion boards to
evaluate their programs at least every five years. Accurate evaluations
require the development of sophisticated techniques that differentiate
the impact of research and promotion expenditures from several other
market influencing factors.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal is to determine the economic effectiveness of
generic promotion programs designed to increase the sales of
agricultural commodities in domestic and international markets.
Accomplishments over the last five years include: Understanding key
economic relationships in the advertising and promotion of milk and
dairy products, beef, cotton, and eggs, and the exports of beef, pork,
and wheat; developing new methods of estimating the relationships among
advertising, promotion, government support programs, and government
policy; developing new methods of measuring advertising ``wearout;''
determining the sensitivity of results using various methods;
explaining the effect of socioeconomic and market factors on the impact
of advertising; estimating optimal allocation of advertising
expenditures by type of media; comparing the relative returns from
generic and brand advertising. The Institute has sponsored educational
workshops and conferences for promotion board leaders, and for elected
and appointed public officials responsible for developing public policy
and administering checkoff programs.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by the grant began in fiscal year 1994.
The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $235,000; for fiscal years
1995-1999, $212,000 each year; and for fiscal year 2000, $198,000. A
total of $1,493,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal matching funds and sources allocated to
this grant by Cornell University are as follows: $97,333 a year in
State appropriations for 1994-96; $125,650 for 1997; and $130,430 each
for 1998 and 1999. Collaborating institutions performing work under
subcontracts also contribute non-Federal matching funds.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work is being carried out at Cornell University in
collaboration with eight other land-grant universities.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1994 was for a period of 21
months, however, the need to evaluate the benefits of commodity
promotion and research programs is a growing regional and national
concern, as producers take on greater responsibility for marketing
their products. An increasing number of promotion and research programs
are being evaluated. The current phase of the program will be completed
in 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in February
1999, as it evaluated the 1999 project proposal, and determined that
``the project has sound objectives and procedures that are helping
private and public decision makers effectively expand markets for U.S.
agricultural products leading to a highly competitive agricultural
production system and enhanced economic opportunity for Americans. The
principal investigator is well recognized for his leadership in this
area of research. Research results appear in several peer reviewed
professional journals and popular press, and researchers have ongoing
dialog with private and public decision makers.
GLOBAL CHANGE
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the global change grant.
Answer. Radiation from the sun occurs in a spectrum of wavelengths
with the majority of wavelengths being beneficial to humans and other
living organisms. A small portion of the short wavelength radiation,
what is known as the Ultraviolet or UV-B Region of the spectrum, is
harmful to many biological organisms. Fortunately, most of the UV-B
radiation from the sun is absorbed by ozone located primarily in the
stratosphere and does not reach the surface of the earth. The discovery
of destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer and development of the
ozone hole over polar regions has raised concern about the real
potential for increased UV-B irradiance reaching the surface of the
earth and the significant negative impact this could have on all
biological systems including man, animals, and plants of agricultural
importance. There is an urgent need to determine the amount of UV-B
radiation reaching the earth's surface and to learn more about the
effect of this changing environmental force. The Cooperative State
Research, Education and Extension Service, CSREES, is in the process of
establishing a network for monitoring surface UV-B radiation which will
meet the needs of the science community of the United States, and which
will be compatible with similar networks being developed throughout the
world. The fiscal year 1999 grant supports work thru September 2000.
This grant is part of a government-wide initiative. The research is
closely coordinated with the National Aeronautical and Space
Administration, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Smithsonian,
the National Science Foundation, and the Department of the Interior.
All these Federal agencies are involved in the U. S. Global Change
Research Program Inter-agency UV-Monitoring Network Plan.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes destruction of the
stratospheric ozone layer, our shield from the full intensity of solar
radiation, continues to increase. This creates a high priority need for
information to document not only the levels of UV-B radiation reaching
the earth's surface, but the climatology of that radiation. The United
States, and the rest of the world, needs to know the strength of the
UV-B radiation reaching the earth and the potential impact on all forms
of life, especially animal and plant life of agriculturally important
species. The principal researcher believes this research to be of
national as well as regional and local importance.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The purpose of the USDA UV-B Network is to provide
accurate, geographically dispersed data on UV-B radiation reaching the
surface of the earth and to detect trends over time in this type of
radiation. A primary problem which had to be overcome in order to reach
this goal was the development of instrumentation adequate to make the
measurements required for the monitoring network. A major advance
occurred during 1996 with the availability to the network of a new
multi-band instrument which will provide the spectral information
needed to support both biological and atmospheric science research and
to serve as ground-truth for satellite measurements. These instruments
have been deployed and are currently in operation at twenty-six
monitoring sites across the United States, including Hawaii. The
researchers plan to have additional sites in Alaska, Puerto Rico,
Oregon, North Carolina, and Oklahoma, but these plans are on hold due
to lack of funding to support their installation and operation.
Two grants to design and build six advanced spectro-radiometers
have been awarded under the National Research Initiative Competitive
Grants Program. These instruments are to be used in a research network
to make precise measurements of the total UV-B spectra at selected
research sites. The first of these instruments failed to meet spectral
performance standards when tested and calibrated by the National
Institute of Science and Technology. An alternative design which
resulted in a much larger and more difficult instrument to deploy has
been developed. The first of the advanced instruments was deployed at
Department of Commerce research site at Table Mountain near Boulder,
Colorado during the fall of 1998. The second and third were installed
at a Department of Energy solar radiation research site in Oklahoma and
at an Agricultural Research Service Plant Stress site in Beltsville,
Maryland during 1999. Additional funding will be required to support
the deployment of additional research instruments.
To gain experience in network operation, broadband instruments
along with ancillary instruments were installed at ten sites and have
been in operation for the last 64-72 months. These sites are now
equipped with a full compliment of instruments including the new multi-
band instrument. Sixteen additional sites developed since 1997 are
similarly equipped with broadband and the new multi-band UV instrument.
Data from each site is transmitted daily to Colorado State University
for preliminary analysis, distribution and archiving. These data are
available, within 24 hours of collection, on the Internet via a World
Wide Web Site located in the Natural Resources Research Laboratory at
Colorado State University. The Department of Agriculture is also a
participant in the development of a central calibration facility at
Department of Commerce facilities in Boulder, Colorado. The purpose of
the central calibration facility is to ensure uniform and acceptable
calibration and characterization of all instruments used in interagency
UV-B monitoring programs.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1992,
and the appropriation for fiscal years 1992-1993 was $2,000,000 per
year; fiscal year 1994 was $1,175,000; fiscal year 1995 was $1,625,000;
fiscal year 1996 was $1,615,000; fiscal year 1997 was $1,657,000; and
fiscal years 1998, 1999 and 2000 were $1,000,000 per year. A total of
$12,982,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $162,000 State appropriations in 1993; $183,106 State
appropriations in 1994; and $285,430 provided by Colorado State
University in 1995.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Colorado State University is managing the operating
network, which when completed will include all regions of the country.
At least thirty sites are planned for the climatological network
including sites in Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico in order to provide
broad geographic coverage. Ten sites have been operational with broad
band instruments for up to six years and twenty-six sites are now
operational with new generation instruments. The research level network
began with the first instrument installed at the Table Mountain,
Colorado instrument intercomparison site and the second and third have
been installed at the Department of Agriculture Plant Stress Laboratory
at Beltsville, Maryland and The Department of Energy Solar Radiation
site near Ponca City, Oklahoma as part of the Atmospheric Radiation
Measurements field network in 1999.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. As with other weather and climate observations, this
network will be an ongoing need for the predictable future. These
measurements will provide information on the nature and seriousness of
UV-B radiation in the United States and will provide ground truth
validation to other predictions of UV-B irradiance. The project has
nearly met its first objective of the establishment of a climatological
network to monitor UV-B radiation at the surface of the earth. Years of
operation will be required to measure trends in UV-B radiation and to
develop models to predict the climatology of UV-B radiation.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency has assigned two technical staff to continuously
monitor activities in the global change research program. A team of
three experts in UV-B radiation measurement technology reviewed
specifications for the development of the advanced spectroradiometers
in July, 1996 prior to the procurement of major components of the
instrument. A panel of radiation spectra scientists were brought in to
review data derived from the new multi-band instruments in December
1996 to advise on the interpretation and analysis of data derived from
these instruments. Agency staff is in contact with program management
on a weekly basis and has visited the program headquarters six times
during the last year. The annual plan of work has been reviewed by
three scientists prior to approval by the agency. A review of the UV-B
Monitoring Program by a panel of technical experts from outside the
Department is planned for 2000.
GLOBAL MARKETING SUPPORT SERVICES, ARKANSAS
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the global marketing support services program.
Answer. The Global Marketing Support Services project provides
leadership for a comprehensive program to integrate Arkansas into the
global economy. It provides market analyses and other research to
identify marketing opportunities, and provides access to essential
databases for people interested in conducting their own research. The
research effort supports several educational activities, including
workshops, educational materials, one-on-one technical assistance that
help mostly small and moderate size businesses understand and enter the
export market The research proposal received a peer review at the
university prior to submission to CSREES.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes the emerging importance
of global trade to the nation's economy and the reduction of trade
barriers world-wide present unprecedented opportunities for cooperative
public-private-university research to develop expertise not only in
Local markets, but in world markets as well.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal is to develop a university research and service
organization to support international trade development activities by
local area businesses. During the past year, two market analyses were
done for Slovakia, and work was initiated for countries in Central and
South America. As a result of previous work, a Panamanian business
leader visited Arkansas firms in 1999. Two ``Export Marketing--Getting
Started'' workshops were held; six firms received one-on-one assistance
and have significantly increased their interest in international
marketing. Six factsheets were completed and distributed. An Internet
website was used to distribute information, and an Internet
international market was developed. The project developed stronger ties
with the Small Business Development Council, Arkansas Economic
Development Commission and the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service as
partners in educational and technical assistance activities.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994.
The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $47,000; for fiscal years
1995 through 1997, $92,000 per year; and for fiscal years 1998 through
2000, $127,000 per year. A total of $704,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were $90,000 per year in State appropriations for 1994 through 1996;
$51,700 for 1997; $80,000 for 1998; and $83,000 for 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This research is being conducted at the University of
Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1994 was for a period of 12
months, but the objective of expanding the export capacity of small to
medium-sized agribusiness firms will not be met until 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in February
1999, as it evaluated the 1999 proposal, and determined that ``the
project is helping agribusiness expand markets for U.S. Agricultural
products leading to a highly competitive agricultural production system
and enhanced economic opportunity for Americans. The principal
investigator provides very good leadership for the project and
integrates it into the overall research, education and extension
functions of the university to provide relevant and useful assistance
to Arkansas firms.''
GRAIN SORGHUM, KANSAS
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Grain Sorghum grant.
Answer. This project was designed to improve the yield improvement
of grain sorghum cultivars by developing early maturing hybrids with a
longer grain filling period. The research focuses on identification of
sorghum germplasm, which have a longer grain filling period or earlier
maturation date. These traits may be used to shift more of the
production to grain and less to vegetative growth, thus enabling more
efficient use of the limited water supply. These funds are awarded to
scientists working on sorghum at Kansas State University.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The focus of this research is toward the non-irrigated
lands of Kansas where sorghum can produce a grain crop under conditions
that would not be possible with corn and is, therefore, very important
in the rotation with wheat. While the research is directed toward
Kansas conditions, it would also apply to adjoining States. Germplasm
research of national significance could potentially be supported by the
competitive grants awarded under the National Research Initiative or
the Initiative for Future Agriculture Food and Systems.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research is to identify germplasm
and use it to develop grain sorghum cultivars that mature earlier and
produce more grain. Initial studies have identified genetic
characteristics controlling grain yield under a range of climatic
conditions. Researchers have identified several sorghum lines, which
have a grain-filling period as much as one-third longer than U.S.
adapted parent lines. Analyses show that variability exists, the trait
is genetically controlled, and incorporation into adapted germplasm can
be accomplished. Simulation of expected production gains has been
initiated.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 1997
and the appropriation for fiscal years 1997 through 2000 was $106,000,
for a total of $424,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. In 1998, Kansas State provided support via salaries and
associated fringe benefits of $31,852, associated indirect costs of
$14,652, and in-kind costs of $45,580, for a total of $92,084 and
$95,700 for 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. These funds are awarded to Kansas State University, which
allocates the money to Kansas State University scientists working on
sorghum.
Question. When was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The objectives of this project, which began in 1997, are to
develop sorghum parental lines with genetically longer grain fill
duration and identify changes in management necessary to optimize grain
production in these lines. Five years or more are required to
accomplish the objectives. The first objective has been completed. The
researchers expect to complete the next three original objectives by
2004 and subsequent objectives by 2006. Preliminary results have
contributed toward the understanding of factors controlling grain yield
and the development of higher yielding sorghum cultivars for Kansas.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project is subjected to the institutional review and
approval process, as well as review by an agency scientist. In
addition, stakeholder input was obtained through formal and informal
methods. The institutional review of the project confirmed that high
priority issues of the sorghum industry in Kansas and other sorghum
producing States were being addressed.
GRASS SEED CROPPING SYSTEMS FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Grass Seed Cropping Systems for Sustainable
Agriculture grant.
Answer. This program was developed to provide management systems
for sustainable grass seed production without field burning of the
straw residue following harvest which results in adverse air quality
problems. Grass seed yields are often significantly reduced the
following season if the residue is not burned.
Funds from this grant are awarded competitively to scientists at
Oregon State University, the University of Idaho, and Washington State
University engaged in research on grass seed production. Each award has
passed a merit review by peer scientist.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that according to
information provided by technical committees representing researchers
and the grass seed industry, the need for this research is to develop
sustainable systems of seed production that do not depend on field
burning of straw residue. Much of the grass seed for the United States,
including lawn grasses, is produced in the area. Field burning of straw
residue creates unacceptable levels of air pollution and yields of some
cultivar decline without burning.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal for this project is to develop grass seed
production systems that do not depend on field burning of straw
residue. To date, joint planning by State experiment station
administrators and researchers from the three States with industry
input have developed an integrated regional research effort to solve
the problem.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994.
The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $470,000, and for fiscal
years 1995-2000, $423,000 each year. A total of $3,008,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal support for this project in fiscal year
1994 was $266,055, $298,052 for fiscal year 1995, $282,053 in 1996
$301,650 in 1997, $310,700 in 1998, and $346,500 in 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research will be conducted by the three State
agricultural experiment stations in Idaho, Oregon and Washington.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Completion of the initial objectives was anticipated to
take five years and, were partially completed in 1999. Revised goals
leading to application of new management systems have been developed
and should be completed in 2004.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The entire project is reviewed annually by a steering
committee for focus and relevance. The combined proposal is reviewed by
the agency before funds are awarded.
Considerable progress has been made toward identifying the
consequences of phased out field burning of straw residue on grass seed
production. Current and future effort are directed toward development
of sustainable systems without field burning. This program is subject
to annual comprehensive evaluation by a team of peer scientist,
industry representatives, and farmers. The results are used to guide
research for the next year. Each proposal is subjected to the
institution project approval process and reviewed by the agency
National Program Leader.
HUMAN NUTRITION, IOWA
Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Human Nutrition, Iowa grant.
Answer. This research aims to develop animal and plant foods with
nutritionally optimal fat content and to improve utilization of foods
containing non-nutrient health protectants, components that may reduce
health risks. The research includes food production and processing,
human and animal nutrient utilization, consumer food choices, and
economic impacts of designed food to support optimal nutrition. The
fiscal year 1999 grant supports research efforts of 30 investigators
from seven disciplines through June 2000. CSREES requested that the
university submit a grant proposal for fiscal year 2000 which is now
under CSREES merit review.
Question. According to the principal researcher, what is the
national, regional or local need for this research?
Answer. The research addresses food quality, nutrition and optimal
health. Much of the research focuses on improving the nutritional
quality of foods important to the economy of the Midwest, while making
those improvements economically feasible. Ongoing research focuses on
increasing health protective lipids and plant chemicals in human foods.
Such foods have recently been called functional foods and the
development of functional foods is of high priority to the food
industry. Recent strategies have included genetic modification of plant
foods for animal and human diets.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the Center for Designing Foods to Improve
Nutrition, the administrative unit for this grant, is to improve human
nutrition and health maintenance by determining how to improve animal
and plant food fat content and how to increase availability of health-
protectant factors in the human food supply.
The Center's research group on soybean health effects has
established an international reputation for the soybean isoflavone
database. Studies of isoflavone absorption and bioavailability
indicated different human phenotypes in the intestinal breakdown of
isoflavones. Ongoing studies are determining genetic and environmental
factors responsible for these differences. Results suggest that
consumption of soybeans with isoflavones during menopause help to
maintain bone density. One project focuses on the structural features
of flavones and related compounds that are effective in preventing
colon cancer. Results suggest that combining flavonoids at low doses
may enhance the ability in prevention of colon cancer.
Additional projects are focusing on other phytochemicals that are
widely distributed in plant foods and may account for many of the
beneficial properties associated with eating fruits and vegetables.
Another project has identified a bioactive compound from cinnamon that
may potentiate the action of insulin to help overcome insulin
resistance in type II diabetics. Recent research using the Center's
unique analytical facilities determined that a normal dietary intake of
the carotenoid, lutien, interferes with the generation of vitamin A
from beta-carotene, a major carotenoid precursor for vitamin A.
Other accomplishments include development of strategies for
enriching yogurt, milk, eggs and pork with conjugated linoleic acids
commonly called CLA. These compounds have unique cancer preventive
properties and are derived from animal fats. Eggs were shown to be a
particularly good human food for increasing dietary CLA. Other ongoing
research identified fractions of human milk that enhance iron
absorption by human colon cells. Such a milk factor was long expected
to be responsible for the unique high iron absorption by human infants
fed mothers' milk. The identification of this factor will have
important benefits for infant feeding and for improving iron
fortification. In the area of behavior modification, Center scientists
developed a two-credit college course for freshmen that successfully
prevented weight gain, whereas control students who did not participate
gained 7.8 kilograms over the sixteen-month study period.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991
with an appropriation of $300,000. The fiscal years 1992-1993
appropriation was $500,000 per year; $470,000 in fiscal year 1994;
$473,000 per year in fiscal years 1995 through fiscal year 2000. A
total of $4,608,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What are the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $293,000 university, $312,869 industry, and $14,000
miscellaneous in 1991; $90,000 State appropriations, $473,608
university, $131,160 industry, and $116,560 miscellaneous in 1992;
$307,500 State appropriations, $472,081 university, and $222,267
industry in 1993; $486,000 university and $254,000 private in 1994;
$210,000 university and $200,000 private in 1995; $613,770 university
and $207,811 private in 1996; $690,736 university and $458,000 private
in 1997; $502,124 university and $700,000 private in 1998; and $363,000
university, $3,109,000 private and $2,617,000 other Federal in 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at the Center for Designing
Foods to Improve Nutrition, Iowa State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original overall objective to design foods to improve
nutrition is continuing to be addressed. A new set of related
objectives will be completed in 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The grant proposals for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 have
undergone extensive scientific peer review by the grantee. Progress and
objectives were further reviewed in May 1999, by the Center's newly
formed External Advisory Council and their recommendations are being
implemented.
HUMAN NUTRITION, LOUISIANA
Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Human Nutrition, Louisiana grant.
Answer. Obesity remains a worldwide epidemic. The grant entitled
``Dietary Fat and Obesity'' examines three aspects of this problem.
Will the replacement of dietary fat reduce body weight in overweight
men? Will fluctuations in daily fat intake influence the ability to use
fat? How do good and bad fatty acids produce their differences?
Question. According to the principal researcher, what is the
national, regional or local need for this research?
Answer. If dietary fat plays a role in the epidemic of obesity,
reducing fat intake might help alleviate its consequences. In
collaboration with industry, the effects of a commodity-derived fat
substitute made from sugar and soybean oil, which can lower the intake
of available fat, is under investigation.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The overall goal of this grant is to identify the basis for
the susceptibility to obesity of people who eat high-fat diets and to
understand how they differ from those people who are resistant to
becoming obese when eating a high-fat diet. In the first project,
researchers have just completed a year-long feeding study in which one
group received a standard diet that was compared with two low-fat
diets. The data that are now being analyzed suggest that overweight men
lose weight when eating the special commodity-derived fat replacement,
but not when eating a standard diet. In the second project, studies on
the effect of varying the intake of fat from day to day suggest that
the adaptation is similar to a single change. This implies important
sensing mechanisms respond rapidly but are not well understood. Data
from the third project, dealing with dietary fatty acids and insulin
sensitivity, clearly show that trans fatty acids acutely increase
insulin secretion and/or reduce insulin clearance, and that this effect
is more pronounced in people with certain genetic characteristics.
Longer-term feeding studies with trans fatty acids in healthy young men
and women showed that trans fatty acids do not have strong effects on
insulin action if a low-fat diet is consumed.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991,
and the appropriation for fiscal years 1991-1993 was $800,000 per year
and for fiscal years 1994-2000 was $752,000 per year. A total of
$7,664,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What are the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $523,100 State appropriations in 1991; $515,100 State
appropriations and $2,216,606 private in 1992; $536,100 State
appropriations and $940,000 private in 1993; $627,000 state
appropriations and $3,775,000 private in 1994; $546,100 State
appropriations and $3,100,000 private in 1995; $1,471,000 State
appropriations and $2,488,000 private in 1996; $1,998,000 State
appropriations and $2,104,000 private in 1997; $987,000 State
appropriations and $1,892,000 private in 1998; and $1,004,000 State
appropriations and $3,136,000 private in 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted at the Pennington Biomedical
Research Center, Louisiana State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original overall objective was to understand the
relationship of dietary fat to the development of obesity, and this
objective hasn't changed. The anticipated completion date for the
specific related objectives is 2001. The objectives to be completed
over the remaining time of the grant will be reviewed by an external
advisory team.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. In March 1999 an on-site panel of researchers evaluated the
proposed objectives and experimental protocols. The critiques from this
site visit were used to revise the final proposal. Another site visit
is planned in 2000 to assess the progress, and evaluate a new set of
relative objectives, and future research protocols.
HUMAN NUTRITION, NEW YORK
Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Human Nutrition, New York grant.
Answer. This grant continues to bring together investigators who
focus on issues that range from improving our understanding of key
roles of nutrients at the molecular level to the development of
improved strategies to enable consumers to adopt newly created
knowledge easily and effectively. At the molecular end of the spectrum,
emphasis is given to nutrient-gene interactions and at the consumer
end, emphasis is given to the role that a supportive environment plays
in enabling consumers to make desired changes in their eating patterns.
The fiscal year 1999 grant supports research through September 2000 and
the focus shifted to address the individualization of nutrient
requirements from a broad multidisciplinary perspective.
Question. According to the principal researcher, what is the
national, regional or local need for this research?
Answer. In the past decade, and in particular the past five years,
there has been an explosion of knowledge concerning individual
differences in the genetic control of metabolism which underlay disease
processes and health maintenance. Because metabolism cannot exist
without the provision of nutrients, and because nutrients influence
genetic control, an understanding of genomics is fundamental to the
development of nutritional sciences, from the biological to the social.
Further, knowledge of individuality will become critical for the
development of appropriate nutrition programs and policies, ranging
from food system concerns, to the philosophy and design of dietary
guidelines and guidance, to the implementation and evaluation of food
assistance programs. For all of these applications there is a need for
an integrated consideration of individual differences, not just in
biology, but also in personal and cultural experience with food and
other lifestyle and environmental exposures.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. Dietary Guidelines emphasize a reliance on plant-based
foods. This emphasis is designed to control caloric consumption, reduce
fat intake, modify the composition of ingested fats, enhance the
consumption of foods associated with reduced cancer risk and
simultaneously insure that nutrient needs are met in the proportion
that is recommended. The researchers continue to address information
gaps that relate to these health goals and to the policy aims for their
implementation and that limit the more effective enhancement of
consumer practices. This grant supported 25 research and outreach
projects over the past year including 14 new awards in fiscal year
1999.
Selected highlights of the work in community outreach included the
expansion of the Sisters in Health program to ten additional counties
in New York State. This research-based nutrition education program
encourages low income women to eat more fruits and vegetables through
active experiences with foods in a positive social setting and has
reported a 30 percent increase in fruit and vegetable consumption by
participants. Another project supported the Community Food Security
planning sessions that were held in six counties in New York State.
Members of the groups have incorporated the insights and plans obtained
from these sessions into their existing programs and activities.
The new initiative in genomics led to a study of the regulation of
folate metabolism during neural development in a mouse model system.
Disruption in folate metabolism due to nutritional deficiency and/or
genetic predisposition is responsible for the occurrence of
approximately 60 to 70 percent of neural tube birth defects including
spina bifida. Using transgenic and gene knock-out approaches,
researchers identified key genes that regulate folate metabolism
exclusively during neural development. They are elucidating the
molecular association between certain genes and nutrient status in the
disease process, thereby defining the relative contribution of both
nutrition and genetics in these folate-related birth defects. Other
work in genomics include a study of the potential role of Receptor
Associated Protein as a chaperone of lipoprotein lipase by employing
mice with deletion of a critical gene. Lipoprotein lipase is a pivotal
enzyme that regulates lipid metabolism. The enzyme is found mainly in
adipose tissue and muscles but not in the liver. Recent work may have
identified the molecular basis for the lack of expression of this
enzyme in the liver.
Question. How long has this work been underway, and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1989, $450,000; fiscal years 1990-1991, $556,000
per year; fiscal years 1992-1993, $735,000 per year; fiscal year 1994,
$691,000; fiscal years 1995-2000, $622,000 each year. A total of
$7,455,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What are the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $154,056 State appropriations and $2,456 private in
1991; $238,430 State appropriations and $60,746 private in 1992;
$19,401 State appropriations and $22,083 private in 1993; $202,441
State appropriations and $1,175 private in 1994; $296,794 State
appropriations in 1995; $348,127 in State appropriations and $39,593
private in 1996; $133,162 State appropriations in 1997; $8,185
university appropriations, $166,752 State appropriations, and $7,905
private in 1998; and $6,395 university appropriations, $164,244 State
appropriations, and $7,414 private in 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at Cornell University, New
York.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original overall objective to integrate nutrition goals
and food systems is continuing to be addressed in fiscal year 1999. The
university changed the focus to complement the university's initiative
in genomics and to human and social science issues that relate to food
and nutrition. Progress has been consistent with the proposed time
lines. They anticipate completing the specific related objectives in
2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. CSREES made a site visit on May 27, 1999, to evaluate the
change in focus. The grant proposal for fiscal year 1999 was also
subjected to independent peer review coordinated through the Cornell
Agricultural Experiment Station. Based on reviewer recommendations, two
proposed objectives were not funded and modifications were made to
experimental designs of other projects.
HYDROPONIC TOMATO PRODUCTION, OHIO
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Hydroponic Tomato Production, Ohio grant.
Answer. The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service has requested the university to submit a grant proposal that
has not yet been received. Cultural practices, greenhouse design, and
economics will be evaluated for Ohio and adjacent areas. Tomato
production will be evaluated as an alternative enterprise to other
crops.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The research is needed to develop and evaluate management
protocols for economical production of green houses tomatoes as an
alternative crop for Ohio and adjacent areas.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goals of the research is to provide
recommendations for management systems for successful operation of
green house tomatoes as an alterative crop.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1998 was $140,000, and for fiscal
years 1999 and 2000 is $200,000 each year. A total of $540,000, has
been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal provided by
fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds provided for support of the project
are $19,400 for fiscal year 1998 and $24,500 for 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research will be conducted by the Ohio State
Agricultural Experiment Station at selected locations in Ohio.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The principal investigator for this project anticipates
completion of the original objectives in fiscal year 2002. New
objectives related to grass breeding are projected for completion in
2004.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project was subjected to a peer review in the
institution and again reviewed by the agency National Program Leader
when initialed in 1998.
ILLINOIS-MISSOURI ALLIANCE FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Illinois-Missouri Alliance grant.
Answer. The Illinois-Missouri Alliance has initiated a competitive
grants program in agricultural biotechnology for research in targeted
priority areas of need related to corn and soybeans. The scope of
interest includes production, processing, marketing, utilization,
inputs and support services, along with economic, social,
environmental, and natural resource concerns. The Alliance has
solicited research project proposals from scientists at Illinois and
Missouri and other midwestern institutions, and has conducted peer
reviews for science quality, commercial feasibility and potential
economic impact to select the proposals that will be funded. In 1999
the Alliance awarded three new research grants at three institutions
totaling $590,000.
In 1998 the Alliance started an on-line magazine called AgBioForum
devoted to the economics and management of agricultural biotechnology.
The purpose of AgBioForum is to provide unbiased timely information and
new ideas leading to socially responsible and economically efficient
decisions in science, public policy, and private strategies pertaining
to agricultural biotechnology. In its first year of operation,
AgBioForum experienced over 145,000 hits from individuals in
universities, industry, government, and international organizations.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal investigator has indicated that the goal of
the Alliance is the pre-commercial development of emerging
biotechnology discoveries for agriculture. The midwestern region
produces more than half of the nation's output of corn and soybean
crops, and is critical to domestic food security and United States
competitiveness in global agricultural markets. Alliance grants are
awarded on a regional basis to advance corn and soybean production in
the Midwest. The Alliance is implementing a research strategy that it
hopes will generate important biotechnological developments that are
rapidly adaptable to unique local soil, climatic and socioeconomic
conditions of the region. Alliance grants are awarded to projects with
a clearly defined marketable product or service derived from
biotechnology research.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. Fiscal year 1999 was the fifth year of funding for the
Alliance. The research program focuses on the two major commodity
crops, corn and soybeans, as produced, processed and marketed in the
midwest. The goal of this biotechnology program is to fund integrated
research and development projects that will lead to specifically
defined practical technologies for commercialization. The projects
funded in fiscal year 1999 include efforts to: (1) engineer maize to
produce an isoflavone that is important in human health, (2) develop
molecular markers for resistance of soybean to the sudden death
syndrome fungus and then move resistance into commercial cultivars, and
(3) to develop the genetic basis for asexual seed production in
tripsicum, a close relative of maize.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1995.
The appropriations for fiscal years 1995 and 1996 were $1,357,000 each
year, for fiscal year 1997, $1,316,000, and for fiscal years 1998
through 2000, $1,184,000 per year, bringing the total appropriations to
date to $7,582,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The Alliance has not specified a required amount of
matching funds, but it is expected that most projects will have
commitments for significant direct and in-kind non-Federal support.
Since Alliance projects are still underway, the exact amount of the
non-Federal contribution is still unknown. The non-Federal contribution
is expected to be substantial, and a system for accounting for future
non-Federal contributions is in place.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research projects identified for funding in fiscal
years 1995 through 1999 are being conducted at the University of
Illinois, the University of Missouri, Iowa State University,
Northwestern University, Southern Illinois University, and the
Agricultural Research Service.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Each project proposal for Alliance funding has a target
date for completion. The four initial projects were three-year studies
with anticipated completions at the end of fiscal year 1998. Most of
the second and third rounds of projects are also three-year studies
with anticipated completions at the end of fiscal years 1999 and 2000,
respectively.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The Illinois-Missouri Biotechnology Alliance was evaluated
for scientific merit by an agency peer review panel on February 25,
1999. The panel recommended approval of the project pending receipt of
supplemental information on administrative aspects of the project. The
supplemental information was received and we are satisfied that the
program is being administered in compliance with the purpose of the
grant. A peer review panel will be convened to re-evaluate the project
upon receipt of a proposal for fiscal year 2000.
IMPROVED DAIRY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, PENNSYLVANIA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Improved Dairy Management Practices grant.
Answer. The research focuses on developing methods to help dairy
farmers in the adoption of new technology and management practices
which lead to improved dairy farm profitability. Individual research
projects funded by the grant are determined by a competitive peer
review process administered by the Institution using peers from
Institutions located primarily in other States.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes the local need is for the
identification and implementation of profit enhancing management
strategies for Pennsylvania dairy farms in response to changing market
conditions and emerging technologies. The current focus is to develop
economically-viable solutions to issues confronting Pennsylvania dairy
farmers such as dealing with animal waste in an environmentally-
friendly manner, reducing the cost of forage production systems,
including grazing systems, and to develop a better understanding of
decision processes by dairy farmers.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goals of this research remain the same, which
is the development of methods to help dairy farmers in the adoption of
new technology and management practices which lead to improved dairy
farm profitability. A farm management survey is complete and analysis
of results is in progress. Farm financial models have been developed
and are undergoing a field test on selected farms. Workshops to teach
elements of business management to dairy farmers have been conducted,
and survey instruments are in place to monitor effectiveness of
workshops. Research is currently underway to develop improved models
for nutrient management on northeastern dairy farms, to evaluate the
potential role of intensive grazing systems to replace harvested
forage, and to better understand how decisions are made by dairy farm
families. Refinement of an expert computer-based system to assist dairy
farmers in controlling the udder disease, mastitis, is underway. A
study to evaluate the induction of lactation on dairy profitability is
underway. An additional study to evaluate the impact of improved
protein nutrition during late gestation on dairy cow performance has
been initiated.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1992
and the appropriation for fiscal years 1992 and 1993 was $335,000 per
year. The fiscal year 1994 appropriation was $329,000 and $296,000 each
year in fiscal years 1995-2000. A total of $2,775,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. During fiscal year 1992, $354,917 were from State funds,
and $16,000 from Industry, for a total of $370,417. During fiscal year
1993, $360,374 were from State funds and $16,000 from Industry for a
total of $376,374. Information is not available for fiscal years 1994-
1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at Pennsylvania State
University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The principal researcher anticipated completion of the
original objectives by March 1994. The original objectives were met.
Availability of continued funding has permitted the institution to
develop a competitively awarded grant program within the institution to
address priority issues related to management of dairy farms. Proposals
are reviewed and ranked by peers from other institutions prior to
award. It is anticipated that awards from the fiscal year 2000
appropriation will be complete in September 2002. Keeping with the
Administration's policy of awarding research grants competitively, no
further Federal funding for this grant is requested.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency accepts technical review of specific proposals
funded by this grant on an annual basis. The overall proposal is review
by the agency on an annual basis. In addition, technical staff has
conducted on-site review of the program in 1993 and in 1995. The
overall objective of the work funded by this grant has direct
relationship to the development of Integrated Management System as well
as to aspects of animal production systems on animal well-being and
impact on the environment.
IMPROVED EARLY DETECTION OF CROP DISEASE, N.C.
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the grant.
Answer. CSREES has requested the university to submit a grant
proposal that has not yet been received.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal investigator is preparing to submit a
proposal, but at this time no additional information is available.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2000
and the appropriation for fiscal year 2000 is $170,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are not known at this time.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted at the University of North
Carolina-Greensboro.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This is a new grant.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This is a new project that will undergo merit review when
received.
IMPROVED FRUIT PRACTICES, MICHIGAN
Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
done under the improved fruit practices grant.
Answer. Funds from this grant will be awarded competitively to
scientist at Michigan State University working with these crops. This
research will involve a multidisciplinary approach to reduce chemical
use on apple, blueberry, and sour cherry, three important Michigan
fruit crops, and improve the management of dry edible beans and sugar
beets. Research will be conducted on crop management techniques and
reduced chemical use.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes Michigan's need for this
research is to develop and maintain/expand their tree fruit and small
fruits industry. There is a need to improve the culture and management
of dry edible beans and sugar beets.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The planned objectives of the research are to reduce the
chemical contamination of the environment from fruit production and
improve production practices for beans and beets through
multidisciplinary research, including pesticides, and the development
of new nonchemical production methods.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994.
The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $494,000, and for fiscal
years 1995-2000, $445,000 each year. A total of $3,164,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
in fiscal year 1994 were $437,338 from State appropriations and
$135,000 from industry, for fiscal year 1995 were $574,494 from State
appropriations and $127,000 from industry and a total of $908,969 for
1996. The non-Federal funds for 1997 totaled $752,500. The non-Federal
funds for 1998 total $729,145, and for 1999 $1,332,300.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted at Michigan State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The Principal Investigators have reported significant
progress toward improved cultural practices for these speciality crops
which is expected to reduce the need for chemical pesticides, and
expect to complete the original objective by the end of fiscal year
1999. Long-term goals are expected to take an additional five years
with a projected completion date of 2004.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This project has not been subjected to a comprehensive
review. The annual proposals including all of its sub projects are
subjected to peer review before submission to the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service before they are approved.
The project has progress toward the objective of developing management
practices and strategies for economical production of specialty crops
in Michigan with reduced chemical pesticide use.
This program is evaluated at the end of each research cycle and
priorities adjusted for the next years funding. The evaluation is
performed by scientists at Michigan State University.
INFECTIOUS DISEASE RESEARCH, COLORADO
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been conducted under the Infectious Disease Research, Colorado grant.
Answer. The purpose of this project is to establish a
multidisciplinary research center to study infectious animal diseases
which have a critical economic impact. The ``Center for Economically
Important Infectious Animal Diseases'' will work collaboratively with
universities and State and Federal agencies. The focus will be on the
impact of such diseases on international trade.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for the
research?
Answer. The need for this research is to provide valid risk
assessment models for diseases which affect international trade and
animal and public health. Livestock producers and the industry need
this type of information to enable them to make correct disease
management decisions. The Center will utilize commodity advisory groups
to prioritize specific disease problems and will focus on those
diseases with the greatest potential for economic impact.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal is to establish a regional center that will foster
interactive work on risk assessment, disease control, and minimize the
economic impact of disease outbreaks in livestock. The Center has been
successful in obtaining additional funding from a variety of sources to
initiate studies on diseases such as vesicular stomatitis and
tuberculosis. The coordinating structures have been established and the
Center is poised to make excellent progress during the next year.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999
with appropriations in fiscal year 1999 of $250,000 and in fiscal year
2000, $255,000, for a total of $505,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds by
fiscal year?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999 the project also received the following
funds: other Federal agency grants, $85,750; private foundation grants,
$39,488; State, $33,120.
Question. Where is this work being performed?
Answer. The research is being conducted at the College of
Veterinary Medicine, Colorado State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date is 2003. The work is
proceeding on the designated schedule and it is expected that the
objectives will be met in a timely manner.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of it.
Answer. Because the project was just initiated in fiscal year 1999,
no evaluation has been done at this time. However, the first review
will be conducted later in fiscal year 2000, on the first anniversary
of the initiation of the project.
INSTITUTE FOR FOOD SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, ARKANSAS
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Institute for Food Science and Engineering grant.
Answer. As the flagship center for the Institute of Food Science
and Engineering, the Center for Food Processing and Engineering has as
its objectives to facilitate and encourage value-added research and
improve the processing of agricultural products.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes the Institute will
provide technical support and expertise to small and mid-sized food
processors that usually do not possess adequate expertise in-house. The
economy of the southern region will be improved through the creation of
new jobs and a high multiplier effect from the research. The Institute
will develop and disseminate scientific information and provide
educational programs related to value-added further processing, storage
and marketing of food products. These efforts will assure food safety,
improve the sensory and nutritional quality of food and meet the
nutritional requirements and food preferences of a changing society.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research is to establish an
Institute of Food Science and Engineering at the University of
Arkansas-Fayetteville. The Institute for Food Science and Engineering
and the Center for Food Processing and Engineering are operating.
Research projects at the Center include: postharvest management
practices for rice, such as studies of physicochemical properties,
bacterial load of rice products, and milling systems, and development
of methods to improve the texture and dill flavor of pickles, and the
color of acidified pickled vegetables, with estimated impact to the
pickle industry of $500,000 annually. Researchers have developed 12
mechanized systems for total vineyard mechanization which maintain or
improve juice and wine quality. Research on physicochemical properties
of potatoes and bitterness in carrots and have had estimated economic
impacts of several million dollars. Research on elecrochemical flow-
through systems for chicken processing water and near infrared/mid-
infrared imaging for large scale fruit processing have important
applications in industry. Institute staff, including the Descriptive
Sensory Panel, have assisted both national food processing companies
and small commercial kitchens in process development, with an impact of
up to $2,000,000 annually on the Arkansas vegetable processing
industry. The Institute's Center of Excellence presents workshops in
the United States as well as planning train the trainer courses in
Mexico and Central America to improve the safety of imported fresh
fruit and vegetables. To date, 70 publications, two IMPACT reports and
a quarterly newsletter have served to keep the industry and fellow
scientists informed of research and technology transfer activities.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1996.
The appropriation for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 was $750,000 each
year, $950,000 for fiscal year 1998, and $1,250,000 each for fiscal
years 1999 and 2000. A total of $4,950,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
include $184,700 in State funds and $93,000 from industry in fiscal
year 1996, and $187,357 in State funds and $320,403 industry funds in
fiscal year 1997. Thus far in fiscal year 1998, industry has provided
$93,599, with firm commitments of an additional $55,000. The State has
also provided facilities and administrative and clerical support
estimated at $303,694 through June 30, 1998. The Institute has also
received $48,000 to establish the Food and Agriculture Organization
Center of Excellence.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted at the University of Arkansas at
Fayetteville.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
Answer. The principal researcher anticipates that work will be
completed on the original goals in fiscal year 2002. The goals of this
project related to establishing the centers of the Institute have not
been fully met. The Center for Food Processing and Engineering and the
Center for Food Safety and Quality are in operation; activation of the
Center for Human Nutrition is scheduled for 1999. The objectives
related to research and service to industry, food entrepreneurs and the
general public would continue to be ongoing.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of the
proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual basis.
In a review of the proposal on April 14, 1999, the assessment was that
satisfactory progress was demonstrated in meeting the goals of the
Institute.
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Integrated Pest Management research grant.
Answer. This research grant develops new pest management tools to
address critical pest problems identified by farmers in an agricultural
production region. Funds are distributed through the Regional
Integrated Pest Management--IPM--Grants Program, which provides
competitively-awarded grants to develop new pest management tactics to
replace management tools lost as a result of regulatory action, pest
resistance, and other factors. The Regional IPM Grants program supports
research and extension projects that identify new pest management
tactics, validate the effectiveness of new tactics in a production
setting, and help producers implement these tactics by providing
education and training programs. Proposals submitted to the Regional
IPM Grants Program undergo technical and merit review at the regional
and national levels.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research.
Answer. The ability of the Nation's agricultural production system
to keep pace with domestic and global demand for food and fiber is
dependant on access to safe, profitable, and reliable pest management
systems. For a variety of reasons, including the Food Quality
Protection Act of 1996--FQPA--and pest resistance, many of the chemical
control options farmers and other pest managers have relied on for many
years are no longer available. The loss of these important tools is
likely to continue at an accelerated rate over the next several years,
and will have significant impacts on pest management systems in the
United States over the next decade. The ``minor use'' crops--high value
crops grown on relatively few acres--will be particularly hard hit
during this period. For these reasons and others, it is essential that
farmers be provided with new pest management tools and better
information so they can remain competitive in today's global
marketplace. These research grant funds are an important part of the
Department's plan to assist farmers in finding effective pest
management alternatives so they can adjust to changes in pesticide
availability resulting from implementation of FQPA.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this research is to provide farmers with new
pest management options that allow them to reduce dependance on
pesticides, improve profitability, and protect vital natural resources.
The research supported by this research grant has made important
contributions to increasing knowledge about new approaches to pest
management, but the need for continued investment in this area of
research is greater than ever. The following are some accomplishment
examples:
--In Massachusetts, an Integrated Pest Management approach for fresh
sweet corn was developed using early season applications of
Bacillus thuringuienses followed by an application of vegetable
oil. This system is effective and economical and meets the
requirements for organic production and allows small-acreage
sweet corn growers to produce the crop without relying on
insecticides.
--In Arkansas, a ``friendly'' fungus was discovered that attacks
cotton aphids, a major pest of cotton. The aphid fungus saves
Arkansas cotton growers millions of dollars each year by
reducing the need to apply aphid insecticides.
--In Kentucky, researchers developed a simple management system for
Japanese beetles that allows landscapers to determine the
optimum timing for insect management. This management system
has resulted in better use of resistant varieties and has
reduced pesticide use.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much as been
appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1981, $1,500,000; fiscal years 1982 through 1985,
$3,091,000 per year; fiscal years 1986 through 1989, $2,940,000; fiscal
year 1990, $2,903,000; fiscal year 1991, $4,000,000; fiscal years 1992
and 1993, $4,457,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $3,034,000; and fiscal
years 1995-2000, $2,731,000 each year. A total of $60,861,000 has been
appropriated since fiscal year 1981.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. A study of the sources of non-Federal funds that contribute
to this research effort was conducted in 1993-94 with the following
results. In fiscal year 1993, State appropriations, $841,017, product
sales, $33,987, industry grants, $17,081, and other, $31,737; for
fiscal year 1994, State appropriations, $2,303,458, product sales,
$77,157, industry grants, $210,110, and other, $216,552. These studies,
which have not been repeated since 1994, demonstrate a trend toward
greater annual State investments in Integrated Pest Management
programs.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Scientists in all States are eligible to compete for this
funding on a competitive basis. This research is currently being
carried out by Colleges of Agriculture in more than 30 States.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Due to the passage of FQPA in 1996, the economic and
environmental pressures facing U.S. agriculture today are at least as
great today as they were in 1981 when Federal funds were first
appropriated for this research grant. It is important for government to
address the needs of agricultural producers by supporting research and
extension efforts to develop alternative pest management approaches. It
is anticipated that the need for this work will only increase as new
pests emerge, existing pests become resistant to current control
methods, as new pesticide regulations are implemented, and as national
and international markets shift.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Evaluation of this project is a continuous process.
Projects funded by this research grant are awarded through a
competitive process that includes relevance, technical, and merit
review by multi-disciplinary panels. Progress reports are reviewed to
evaluate accomplishments and special attention is given to studies
involving new control strategies relating to at-risk sites with pest
management usage patterns impacted by FQPA implementation.
INTEGRATED PRODUCTION SYSTEMS, OKLAHOMA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Integrated Production Systems, Oklahoma grant.
Answer. This grant focuses on the development of efficient
management systems for production of watermelons and blackberries under
intensively-managed conditions. The work will address biotic and
abiotic production components under Southeastern Oklahoma conditions
for use in production guidelines. This will include planting densities,
fertilizer studies, weed management and insect and disease control.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for the
research.
Answer. The principal researcher believes the need for this
research is focused on the local area of Southeastern Oklahoma, an area
that is economically-depressed and in need of alternative crops to
diversify the dominant cow/calf livestock production.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to develop new and
alternative crops to supplement and diversify the cow/calf livestock
agriculture of Southeastern Oklahoma with emphasis on horticultural
crops. Work to date has shown promise for strawberries, blackberries,
cabbage, melons and blueberries. CD-ROM technology transfer to research
results to support an expert system will be developed for grower use.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Work supported by this grant started in fiscal year 1984
and the appropriations were: fiscal year 1984, $200,000; fiscal year
1985, $250,000; fiscal year 1986, $238,000; fiscal years 1987-1989,
$188,000 per year; fiscal years 1990-1991, $186,000 per year; fiscal
year 1992, $193,000; fiscal year 1993, $190,000; fiscal year 1994,
$179,000; fiscal years 1995-1998, $161,000 each year and fiscal years
1999-2000, $180,000 per year. A total of $3,190,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $165,989 State appropriations in 1991; $160,421 State
appropriations in 1992; and $164,278 State appropriations in 1993. Non-
Federal support for 1994 was $141,850 for State appropriations. Funds
for fiscal year 1995 were $129,552, for 1996 $146,000, for 1997
$152,000, for 1998, $148,000; and for 1999 $151,000.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This research is being done at the West Watkins
Agricultural Research and Extension Center at Lane, Oklahoma, a branch
of the Oklahoma State Agricultural Experiment Station.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objectives of this project were to develop
production systems for alternative crops with economic potential for
southeastern Oklahoma. Each year's funding cycle has addressed specific
crop and management objectives to be completed over two years time.
These short term objectives have been met for each of the completed two
year projects. However the original objective of developing alternative
cropping systems is very long term and have not been completed. The
current project is projected for completion in 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Each of the annual project proposals has been put through
the institutions' review and is reviewed by an agency scientist before
approval. In addition to the annual review of individual proposals, a
comprehensive review of the Lane Agricultural Center, where this
research is conducted, was conducted in 1993. This review revealed that
work supported by this grant is central to the mission of that station
and represents an important contribution to the agriculture of the
area.
This work has provided practical management information for farmers
of southeastern Oklahoma that has improved their ability to
economically-produce small fruit and vegetable crops. This project is
evaluated internally at the end of each year in order to set priorities
for the next year.
international agricultural market structures & institutions, ky
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the International Agricultural Market Structures and
Institutions program.
Answer. The International Agricultural Market Structures and
Institutions project began late in fiscal year 1999 as a means of
helping U.S. agriculture discover new ways to increase its global
market share. The project analyzes food consumption trends and food
distribution systems; evaluates the impact of actual and potential
changes in local policies; identifies potential markets for food
products produced in southern U.S. States.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. U.S. firms need to become more aggressive in international
markets, but these markets are unfamiliar to many firms. The structure
of international markets and the institutions that serve them are often
different than in domestic markets, and the structures and institutions
are continuously changing. Very few southeastern agribusinesses have
the necessary research and intellectual resources to study
international markets; they rely on their public institutions, such as
the University of Kentucky, to assist them in discovering and
exploiting export market windows.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal is to increase the international marketing success
of American farmers and agribusinesses by increasing their
understanding of international markets and the impact of policies that
affect those markets.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999.
The appropriation for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 was $250,000 a year. A
total of $500,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-Federal funding for this grant was $135,000 from State
appropriations in 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work is being conducted at University of Kentucky in
Lexington.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1999 was for a three-year project
ending in 2002. Work is ongoing for the original objectives. Additional
funds in 2000 will extend the project to 2003.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This was a new project in 1999 when CSREES performed a
merit review of the original proposal and noted that: ``The University
of Kentucky has faculty with expertise to conduct such a study. The
principal investigator has been engaged in such work for several years,
has conducted projects in other countries, and has been the
university's director of international programs.''
INTERNATIONAL ARID LANDS CONSORTIUM
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the International Arid Lands consortium.
Answer. Fiscal year 2000 is the seventh year that Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service has funded the International
Arid Lands Consortium. The Forest Service supported the program during
fiscal year 1993 to develop an ecological approach to multiple-use
management and sustainable use of arid and semiarid lands. Projects
that began in 1996-1999 will continue to be funded to address issues of
land reclamation, land use, water resources development and
conservation, water quality, and inventory technology, and remote
sensing. All proposals are peer reviewed and awarded competitively,
whereby the principal investigator must be from a Consortium member
institution.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes the consortium is devoted
to the development, management and reclamation of arid and semi-arid
lands in the United States, Israel, and elsewhere in the world. The
International Arid Lands Consortium will work to achieve research and
development, educational and training initiatives, and demonstration
projects. The current member institutions are the University of
Arizona, The University of Illinois, Jewish National Fund, Jordan's
Higher Council for Science and Technology, New Mexico State University,
South Dakota State University, Texas A&M University, Kingsville and
Nevada's Desert Research Institute. Affiliate membership includes
Egypt's Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation Undersecretary for
Afforestation. The United States Department of Agriculture's Forest
Service works very closely with The International Arid Lands Consortium
through a service-wide memorandum of understanding.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the Consortium was and continues to be
acknowledged as the leading international organization supporting
ecological sustainability of arid and semi-arid lands. To date, 63
projects have been funded, 43 of which are to conduct research and
development, 11 for demonstration projects, and 9 for international
workshops. Funds approximating $4.04 million have been used to fund
these projects.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The International Arid Lands Consortium was incorporated in
1991. Funds were appropriated to the Forest Service in 1993. Additional
funds were received during each of the years that followed. $329,000
has been appropriated from Cooperative State, Research, Education,
Extension Service for fiscal years 1994 through 1998, and $400,000 for
fiscal years 1999 and 2000 each for total appropriations of $2,445,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Members of the International Arid Lands Consortium have
provided funds to support the Consortium office in Tucson, Arizona, and
for printed materials as needed. Each member has provided travel and
operations support for semi-annual meetings, teleconferences, and other
related activities. In fiscal years 1993-1996, $60,000 in State
appropriations were provided. Industry provided $84,083 and $100,000 in
fiscal years 1993 and 1995, respectively. Additional funds of $34,000
were received during 1996 from the Egyptian affiliate member to enhance
future collaboration. Funds of $50,000 from industry were received
during 1998-1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is currently being conducted at the University of
Arizona, South Dakota State University, Texas A&M University,
Kingsville, New Mexico State University, University of Illinois,
Nevada's Desert Research Institute, and several research and higher
education institutions in Israel, Jordan and Egypt.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the projects? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives.
Answer. All research and demonstration projects that started during
1993-1995 have been completed. The projects started in 1996-1997 are
expected to be completed within 12 months depending upon the nature of
the project. Projects started during 1998-1999 will be completed within
2 years. Several demonstration projects were completed and 6
international workshops were held during 1994 through 1999. The
International Arid Lands Consortium is an organization with long-term
goals.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The cognizant staff scientist reviews the project semi-
annually and has determined that the research is conducted is in
accordance with the mission of the agency.
IOWA BIOTECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM
Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Iowa Biotechnology Consortium grant.
Answer. This Consortium is the focal point for cooperative
biotechnology research endeavors between Iowa State University, the
University of Iowa and the City of Cedar Rapids to recover and utilize
byproduct materials arising from new and emerging industries in
biotechnology with an emphasis on fermentation wastes and agribusiness.
Both fundamental and applied research studies are being conducted to
reduce the burden of agricultural bioprocessing wastes on municipal
waste management systems and to transform components of these
agricultural wastes into commercially viable products. The overall
project involves a coordinated approach by a diverse group of
investigators, and funding decisions for individual studies within each
participating institution are based on a competitive peer review
process with letter and panel evaluations.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The environmental burden associated with agriculture and
the agricultural processing industries is recognized as a growing
problem in the United States. These researchers believe that
technological breakthroughs are possible to recover and recycle energy,
chemicals, and materials from agriculture-related wastes. Although
these principal investigators are working with wastes that are
generated in the State of Iowa, similar waste streams are generated by
agricultural industries across the United States.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goals of this project were aimed at enhancing
the recovery and utilization of by-product materials arising from new
and emerging industries using biotechnology. Recycling agricultural
wastes, isolating useful byproducts and developing value added
processing remain the primary thrusts of the project. A cadre of
scientists has been established by the Consortium to assist in finding
uses for the by-product waste streams generated by agricultural
processing. The Consortium is also making important progress in
bioconversion, biocatalysis, membrane concentration, and bioseparation
of by-products. Recently, new studies have been initiated on: value-
added products related to culture of polysaccharide-producing bacteria;
screening of agricultural seed processing fractions for biocatalysts;
conversion of lignocellulose to lactic acid; the use of waste by-
products as feeds for livestock and aquacultural species; composting
strategies for waste streams; and exploitation of mico-organisms that
colonize extreme environments found in food processing plants.
Question. How long has this work been under way and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1989, $1,225,000; fiscal year 1990, $1,593,000;
fiscal year 1991, $1,756,000; fiscal year 1992, $1,953,000; fiscal year
1993, $2,000,000; fiscal year 1994, $1,880,000; fiscal years 1995-1996
$1,792,000 each year; fiscal year 1997, $1,738,000; and in fiscal years
1998 through 2000, $1,564,000 each year. A total of $20,421,000 has
been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant were
as follows: $623,803 from the State of Iowa, $42,813 from the city of
Cedar Rapids in 1991; $768,287 from the State of Iowa, and $365,813
from the city of Cedar Rapids in 1992; $858,113 from the State of Iowa,
and $170,000 from the city of Cedar Rapids in 1993; $841,689 from the
State of Iowa, and $36,000 from the City of Cedar Rapids in 1994;
$1,016,505 from the State of Iowa, and $36,000 from the city of Cedar
Rapids in 1995; $862,558 from the State of Iowa, and $40,000 from the
City of Cedar Rapids in 1996; $1,044,864 from the State of Iowa, and
$50,000 from the City of Cedar Rapids in 1997; $303,549 from the State
of Iowa, and $50,000 from the City of Cedar Rapids in 1998; and
$293,461 from the State of Iowa, and $59,400 from the City of Cedar
Rapids in 1999.
In addition, leveraging of Federal grant monies has been obtained
in the form of industrial matching funds or contracts for related
projects. Some of the more noteworthy awards are as follows: $20,000
from Archer Daniels Midland; $342,720 from Ajinomoto; $40,000 from
BASF; $18,000 from Bluestem Solid Waste Agency; $1,748,975 from
Cargill; $177,200 from Heartland Lysine, Inc.; $48,000 from Horizon
Technology, Inc.; $75,274 from Iowa Corn Promotion Board; $65,200 from
Iowa Energy Center; $80,273 from National Corn Growers Association,
$25,000 from National Pork Producers Council; and $11,500 from
PathoGenesis Corporation.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at Iowa State University and
the University of Iowa, in collaboration with the City of Cedar Rapids.
In addition, field studies are being conducted at various sites through
out Iowa, including the facilities of participating industries located
in Cedar Rapids and other Iowa communities.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The Consortium was originally created as a partnership
between the City of Cedar Rapids and the participating universities to
assist the City in dealing with wastes associated with corn and oat
processing and milling, biocatalysis to produce high-fructose syrups,
and one of the largest fermentation facilities in the world. More
recently, new biotechnology industries have been attracted to Cedar
Rapids and have added greatly to the volume of industrial waste
streams. No firm date was established to complete this research at the
beginning of the project. The researchers have worked closely with the
City and the industries generating these agricultural wastes since
1989, and the nature of the studies has evolved as significant progress
has been made in analyzing waste streams and in devising laboratory
procedures for extracting useful products. The City of Cedar Rapids is
planning to invest funds from other sources in special waste treatment
facilities to conduct large scale tests of new treatment methods.
Several years will be required to complete these tests and to refine
separation technologies.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The Iowa Biotechnology Consortium proposal is composed of a
selected group of studies that are individually peer reviewed within
the universities. Once the complete proposal is submitted to CSREES, it
is again evaluated for scientific merit by an agency biotechnology peer
panel that makes recommendations regarding approval for the award. The
Iowa Biotechnology Consortium proposal for fiscal year 2000 has not yet
been received, and once available a CSREES review panel will be
convened to review and evaluate the proposed studies in the grant
application and to make recommendations regarding overall approval of
the project. In addition, the panel will assess progress during the
past year as a part of the approval process and post-award management.
A site visit was made by a National Program Leader to the research
facilities of the University of Iowa during the past year, and the
Program Manager is planning to conduct an on-site assessment of
research at Iowa State University during the coming year.
IR-4 MINOR CROP MANAGEMENT
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the IR-4 Minor Crop Management grant.
Answer. The Pest Management for Minor Crops (IR-4) Program is a
highly effective effort between the State Agricultural Experiment
Stations, CSREES, and the Agricultural Research Service. IR-4 provides
the national leadership, coordination and focal point for obtaining
data to support the regulatory clearance through the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for pesticides and biological control agents
for specialty food crops such as fruits and vegetables as well as non-
food crops like turf and ornamentals. In many cases, the agricultural
chemical industry can not economically justify the time and expense
required to conduct the necessary research for products with limited
market potential. With assistance from IR-4, registration-related costs
are manageable, and producers of a large number of small acreage crops
such as vegetables, fruits, nuts, herbs and other specialized crops
have access to necessary pest control products. In order to accomplish
the above, a four step process has been developed. Step one involves
research prioritization. Because of limited resources, IR-4 requests
and receives input from stakeholders on potential research projects.
Yearly workshops are conducted that involve growers, commodity
organizations, university research and extension specialists, EPA staff
and industry representatives to determine which projects are the most
critical to minor crop agriculture. Step two is research planning.
Research protocols are written after careful review and comments from
stakeholders. Step three is research implementation. A typical IR-4
program consists of both field and laboratory phases. For the field
work, researchers apply the crop protection chemical to the target crop
according to the experimental protocol. The crop is harvested and
transferred to the laboratories where the chemical residues in the
crop, if any, are determined. All field and laboratory research is
conducted under EPA Good Laboratory Practices. Step four is data
submission and approval. The data are critically reviewed and formatted
into a regulatory package and submitted to the EPA for their review. If
appropriate, the EPA will approve the submission and grant a tolerance
to use the chemical on the target minor crop.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. This is a national effort which identifies needs by a
network of users, commodity groups, and State university and Federal
researchers. This research is highly significant to national and
regional as well as local needs. The basic mission of IR-4 is to aid
producers of minor food crops and ornamentals in obtaining needed crop
protection products. IR-4 is the principal public effort supporting the
registration of crop protection products and biological pest control
agents for approximately $40 billion minor crop industry representing
40 percent of the total farm crop value in the U.S.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal is to obtain minor use pesticide registrations
with a high priority placed on those pesticides classified as Reduced
Risk, assist in the maintenance of current registrations and to assist
with the development and registration of biopesticides. For 1999, IR-4
submitted data to EPA that supported 632 new minor food use clearances.
During the past three years, over 960 new minor food use clearance
requests were submitted to IR-4 from growers, State and Federal
scientists and extension specialists. The Food Use part of the IR-4
Program continues to have a high productivity which, according to EPA,
supports 40 percent of all EPA pesticide registrations. Since the
program's inception in 1963, IR-4 has been granted over 5000 food use
clearances.
For ornamental crops in 1999, IR-4 submitted 532 pesticide
clearance requests to EPA. Since 1977, IR-4 has assisted with the
registration of over 7000 crop protection chemicals and biological pest
control agents on nursery stock, flowers and turf grass. The ornamental
industry accounts for over 25 percent or $11 billion of the total minor
crop value in the U.S. Biopesticides have been an important IR-4 thrust
since 1982. EPA granted 58 IR-4 supported biopesticide food use
clearances in 1999 compared to 48 biopesticide clearances in 1998.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from appropriated funds as
follows: Program redirection in fiscal year 1975, $250,000; fiscal year
1979, $500,000; fiscal years 1976-1980, $1,000,000 per year; fiscal
year 1981, $1,250,000; fiscal years 1982-1985, $1,400,00 per year;
fiscal years 1986-1989, $1,369,000 per year; fiscal year 1990,
$1,975,000; fiscal year 1991, $3,000,000; fiscal years 1992-1993,
$3,500,000; fiscal year 1994, $6,345,000; fiscal year 1995 through
1997, $5,711,000 per year; and fiscal years 1998 through 2000,
$8,990,000 per year. A total of $79,499,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $891,856 State appropriations and $65,402 industry in
1991; $1,002,834 State appropriations and $104,292 industry in 1992;
$1,086,876 State appropriations and $310,133 industry in 1993; $550,160
State appropriations, $408,600 industry, and $924,169 miscellaneous in
1994; $775,432 State appropriations, $266,714 industry, and $751,375
miscellaneous in 1995; and an estimated $800,000 State appropriations,
$250,000 industry, and $800,000 miscellaneous in each years of 1996
through 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Field work is performed at the State and Territorial
Experiment Stations. Laboratory analysis is conducted primarily at the
California, New York, Florida and Michigan Agricultural Experiment
Stations with assistance by the Puerto Rico, Hawaii, North Dakota,
North Carolina, Washington, Virginia, and Idaho Agricultural Experiment
Stations. Field Research Centers located in Hawaii, Oregon, Washington,
California, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, North
Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Texas, New Jersey, New York, Maryland and
New Hampshire conduct the field residue program. Protocol development,
data assimilation, writing petitions and registration processing are
coordinated through the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station.
Agricultural Research Service is conducting minor use pesticide studies
at field locations in California, Georgia, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas,
and Washington. Agricultural Research Service laboratories in Georgia,
Maryland, and Washington are cooperating with analyses.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Selected categories of the Special Research Grants Program
address important national and regional research initiatives. IR-4 is
involved in research on biological systems that by their nature are
ever changing and presenting new challenges to agriculture. The IR-4
workload is anticipated to be long term because of the sensitivities
about food safety and the environment, and the eventual loss of a large
number of conventional pesticide registrations for minor crops because
of the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act--FQPA. The FQPA presents a
serious challenge to minor crop pest management. It is estimated that
there will be significant loss of conventional pesticide registrations
for minor crops. IR-4 has developed a strategy to minimize the impact
of loss of the critical pest control tools needed by our domestic minor
crop growers. The IR-4 strategy involves the following factors: first,
facilitating regulatory clearance of Reduced Risk pesticides for minor
crops; second, when appropriate, develop risk mitigation measures for
existing minor use registrations; third, assist with the registration
of biologically-based pest control products for minor crops; and
fourth, register and maintain pesticides essential to integrated pest
management systems--IPM.
With the implementation of the 1995 Strategy Plan, IR-4 has
achieved significant accomplishments. Since FQPA requires that the EPA
review all of the almost 10,000 tolerances by fiscal year 2006, it is
anticipated that IR-4 program will have a significant challenge to help
bring new crop protection solutions to minor crop growers well into the
next century.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Each year the grant applications are peer reviewed and
reviewed by CSREES' senior scientific staff. A summary of those reviews
indicate excellent progress in achieving the objective of providing
safe pest controls for minor uses. In December 1997, CSREES sponsored a
Peer Review of the Project by a panel chaired by a retired
Administrator of USDA-ARS and representatives from the USDA, EPA,
commodity groups, the food processing industry, the crop protection
industry and the land grant university system; a report was issued
January 1998. The report covered the areas of response to FQPA, Project
operations, accomplishments, good laboratory practices, the ARS
companion program and future outlook with specific recommendations for
each area. The review panel was ``in unanimous agreement that IR-4 is a
very successful program which serves an important need to producers of
agricultural products for ultimate consumption by the American public.
The program is effectively and efficiently administered by a dedicated
professional staff''. The goal in 2000 and beyond will be to build on
this basis and fully implement the recommendations of the panel. This
review and previous reviews have resulted in significant improvement in
the IR-4 program's productivity and quality of research. Additionally,
the customers served by IR-4 have provided input to the program to
enhance its effectiveness.
JOINTED GOATGRASS (AEGILOPS CYLINDRICUM)
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Jointed Goatgrass grant.
Answer. Research is conducted as sub-projects by more than 30
scientists in 10 western and mid-western States on systems for
suppression of jointed goatgrass in winter wheat production systems.
Research includes integrated cultural management, reduction of seed in
the soil, identification of more competitive wheat varieties and crop
rotations, and modeling to predict economic outcomes of changing
management practices. The premier research projects continue to be four
regional, long-term integrated management studies conducted across nine
States. In these studies, various cultural control practices such as
seeding rates, row spacing, planting dates, seed size, competitive
varieties, fertilizer placement, crop rotations, and tillage practices
are being evaluated as an integrated management system for the
suppression of jointed goatgrass. Research is also being conducted on
genetic diversity in the jointed goatgrass population, soil conditions
responsible for persistence of jointed goatgrass seedbank, timing and
intensity of tillage on seed persistence in the soil, gene flow between
wheat and jointed goatgrass, identification of crop traits that make
wheat more competitive against jointed goatgrass, and making the
bioeconomic model more user friendly. All funded projects have a
technology transfer component and a national extension coordinator
insures that growers and extension personnel are fully informed about
all options for the managing this devastating weed. The National
Extension Coordinator is housed at Colorado State University.
Question. According to the research proposal or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Jointed goatgrass infests nearly five million acres of
winter wheat lands in the west and mid-west. Through the efforts of the
national program, the rate of spread of this weed has decreased
significantly in the past 5 years. However, jointed goatgrass still
costs U.S. wheat producers an estimated $145 million annually in lost
yield, reduced quality, production of less profitable crops, increased
management costs, and reduced land values. Control of jointed goatgrass
in a standing wheat crop is impossible with currently available
technology because seed survives in the soil for five years or more,
and because jointed goatgrass is genetically related to wheat. Jointed
goatgrass has increased rapidly in the past 25 years in part because of
the widespread adoption of conservation tillage systems. Jointed
goatgrass proliferated in such systems, and it greatly impedes the
universal adoption of such practices. The principal investigator and
the National Association of Wheat Growers believe this research is of
high national and regional importance.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this project is to reduce the devastating
effect of jointed goatgrass on winter wheat production and quality, and
to prevent the spread of this weed into new, non-infested areas.
Numerous individual cultural control practices have been evaluated in
several States as to their effectiveness for the suppression of jointed
goatgrass and on the growth and yield of wheat. Four regional, long-
term integrated management projects have been established where three
or more individual cultural control practices have been combined into
an integrated management system for the suppression of jointed
goatgrass in winter wheat. Results from these projects show that
combining three or more individual cultural control practices into an
integrated management system will suppress jointed goatgrass and
improve the yield and quality of winter wheat. Significant progress has
been made in understanding gene flow between wheat and jointed
goatgrass. This information will be very valuable in managing the
introduction of herbicide-resistant wheat for the control of jointed
goatgrass. A bioeconomic model has been constructed that combines
jointed goatgrass population biology information, weather data, and
responses of jointed goatgrass and wheat to various cultural control
practices, and predicts wheat yields, response of jointed goatgrass,
and economic outcomes from changing production practices. In 1999, a
symposium on jointed goatgrass was held as part of the Western Society
of Weed Science meetings. At this symposium, ten papers were presented,
outlining the latest research and technology transfer activities of
this national program. Information presented at this symposium was used
to establish new priorities for this program and to guide the program
for the next five years. Since 1994, six regional symposia have been
held to transfer to producers and extension personnel the latest
information on the identification, biology and management of jointed
goatgrass in winter wheat. A World Wide Web site (http://
www.ianr.unl.edu/jgg) has been established and updated annually to
further enhance information transfer. Also, a videotape, a poster and a
slide set have been produced to assist extension personnel in
transferring to producers information on jointed goatgrass biology and
management.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grain began in fiscal year 1994.
The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $329,000; for fiscal years
1995-1997, $296,000, each year; $346,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
$360,000 in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 bringing the total
appropriations to $2,283,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of no-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: for 1994, $82,198 State appropriations, $82,256 from
industry, and $14,871 miscellaneous; for fiscal year 1995, $67,442
State appropriations, $38,496 from industry, and $13,304 miscellaneous;
for each fiscal year 1996-1997, an estimated $70,000 State
appropriations, $50,000 from industry, and $14,000 miscellaneous; for
1998 $231,335 State appropriations, $42,570 from State wheat
commissions, and $15,000 miscellaneous; and for fiscal year 1999,
$258,122 State appropriations, $87,750 State wheat commissions, and
$72,100 miscellaneous.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being conducted by university scientists in
10 western States with serious infestations including Washington State
University, who is the principal coordinating institution and receives
the grant, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, Oregon, Idaho,
Montana, Wyoming, and South Dakota.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The project was initiated to accomplish significant results
in five years, and significant accomplishments have been made. However,
the jointed goatgrass problem will require an additional five more
years to accomplish all of the objectives and to have effective
management practices available for producers to control jointed
goatgrass in winter wheat.
Question. When was the agency evaluation of this project? Provide a
summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Each year the sub-grants are peer reviewed for scientific
merit and adherence to the program objectives by a panel of scientists
and producers. The overall grant is reviewed annually by CSREES's
scientific staff. Sub-contract grants to the various universities are
awarded using a peer review process coordinated by Washington State
University.
LIVESTOCK AND DAIRY POLICY, NEW YORK AND TEXAS
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the livestock and dairy policy program grant?
Answer. The purpose of this grant is to assess the possible
economic impacts on the U.S. livestock and dairy sectors from various
macroeconomic, farm, environmental, and trade policies and new
technologies. Both Cornell University and Texas A&M University conduct
analysis of these policies and disseminate the information to
policymakers, farmers, and agribusinesses. Cornell focuses on sector-
level dairy policies, and Texas A&M focuses on policies affecting
livestock and dairy at the farm level.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Information on the implications of new and alternative
farm, trade, and macroeconomic policies affecting the livestock and
dairy sectors is of special interest to policy-making officials,
farmers, and others. Such information enables farmers and
agribusinesses to make necessary adjustments to their operations to
enhance profitability and for national public officials to consider
alternatives to sustain adequate supplies and minimize costs. The
principal researchers believe this research to be of national, regional
and local significance.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been done to date?
Answer. The original goal was to establish a specialized research
program that could provide timely and comprehensive analysis of
numerous policy and technological changes affecting livestock and dairy
farmers and agribusinesses and advise them and policymakers promptly of
possible outcomes. This goal has been achieved and the program
continues to provide timely assessments and evaluations of provisions
and proposed changes in agricultural policies, the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade, and the North American Free Trade Agreement; various
income and excise tax measures; and alternative pricing measures for
milk. The institutions were integrally involved in several current
studies relating to dairy provisions in the 1996 farm legislation.
These studies contributed significantly to the development of proposed
regulations called for in this legislation. Both institutions maintain
extension outreach programs to disseminate results of their analysis
throughout the United States. They have organized a national Dairy
Markets and Policy Extension committee to advise and assist them in
this effort. This latter committee was especially helpful to USDA in
educating farmers about proposed milk marketing order changes last
year.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1989, $50,000; fiscal year 1990, $518,000; fiscal
years 1991-1993, $525,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $494,000; fiscal
years 1995-1997, $445,000 each year and fiscal year 1999, $475,000;
fiscal year 2000, $475,000. A total of $5,767,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $37,420 State appropriations in 1991; $162,086 State
appropriations and $133,278 product sales for a total of $295,364 in
1992; and $301,817 State appropriations, $1,412 industry, and $7,121
miscellaneous for a total of $310,350 in 1993; $24,702 State
appropriations, and $5,961 industry for a total of $30,663 in 1994;
$235,526 State appropriations for 1995; $250,000 in State
appropriations for 1996; and approximately $245,000 in State funding
for 1997 and 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being conducted at Cornell University and
Texas A&M University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This program is of a continuing nature for the purpose of
assessing existing issues and proposed policy changes affecting the
livestock and dairy industries.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. We have conducted no formal evaluations of this project.
Annual proposals for funding, however, are peer reviewed for relevance
and scientific merit. Our agency contact is also in regular contact
with principal researchers at each institution to discuss progress
toward project objectives.
LOWBUSH BLUEBERRY RESEARCH, MAINE
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the lowbush blueberry research program grant.
Answer. Interdisciplinary research is being conducted on many
aspects of lowbush blueberry culture and processing including
investigations into factors affecting processing quality, biological
control of insect pest, sustainable pollination, weed, disease, and
fertility management, cold heartiness, and group water protection.
Question. According to this research proposal, or the principal
investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Maine produces 99 percent of all lowbush blueberries or 33
percent of all blueberries in the United States. This work is of major
local interest, and helps maintain the continued availability and high
quality of this native fruit commodity.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original research goal was to provide answers to unique
lowbush blueberry production, pest, and processing problems. Research
to date indicates that the field sanitizer was able to use heat to
control insect pests without adversely affecting plant growth, while
providing a non-chemical alternative for pest management. Biological
control agents were sued to control fireworms. Lowbush blueberry yields
were increased by use of native and alfalfa leafcutter bees. Mechanical
harvesting was found to be effective and had yields and fruit quality
comparable to hand harvest, providing growers with a more efficient
tool to harvest blueberries. Products for the use in food industry are
being extracted from cull berries therefore improving utilization and
reducing waste.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1990, $170,000; fiscal year 1991, $202,000; fiscal
years 1992-1993, $185,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $208,000; and
fiscal years 1995-2000, $220,000 per year. A total of $2,270,000 has
been appropriated to date.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Direct industry support was about $65,000 from 1996-2000
per year.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being carried out at the University of Maine.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objectives have not yet been met. The
University of Maine researchers estimate that the project will be
concluded at the end of fiscal year 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The last agency merit review of this project was January,
1999. Research accomplishments included investigations of post
emergence, grass specific herbicides to control weeds rather than the
use of broad spectrum; timing of fertilization treatments and
comparisons of various fertilizer combinations have indicated that
fertilizers containing nitrogen increase yields. Other research
accomplishments include the insect management of blueberry maggots
through behavioral control and the use of less toxic chemicals from
control of blueberry flea beetles.
MAPLE RESEARCH, VERMONT
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Maple Research Grant?
Answer. The research is designed to increase understanding of the
sources of heavy metal contamination in maple sap and syrup and explore
methods of reducing or eliminating lead and other heavy metal
contaminant levels in the finished product through alteration of
manufacturing equipment and production practices.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national, regional, or local focus for this
research?
Answer. Maple products are an important cultural heritage, and a
significant source of seasonal income in maple producing areas of rural
America. Identifying sources of heavy metal contaminants during
processing, and exploring methods to reduce or eliminate contaminants
from maple products is important in assuring consumers that these food
products are not harmful.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished?
Answer. The goal of this research is to conduct investigations on
maple tree physiology, the ecology and management of maple stands, and
related aspects of the maple syrup industry in Vermont and the
Northeast. The primary goal of this work has been to identify and
eliminate sources of lead and other heavy metal contaminants in maple
syrup.
Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Work under this project began in fiscal year 1985. Annual
appropriations in support of this project are as follows: fiscal year
1985--$100,000; fiscal years 1986 and 1987--$95,000 per year; fiscal
years 1988 and 1989--$100,000 per year; fiscal years 1990 through
1993--$99,000 per year; fiscal year 1994--$93,000; fiscal years 1995
through 1997--$84,000 each year; fiscal years 1998 through 2000--
$100,000 per year. A total of $1,532,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal years?
Answer. Non-Federal fiscal support for this project is provided by
two primary sources and one secondary source. The primary sources are
State appropriations and product sales. The secondary source is local
support, but that support is not available each year. The total non-
Federal contribution from these sources provides an average 86 cents
for every dollar of Federal funding. Early in the project the total
non-Federal contribution was 60 cents for every dollar and most
recently one dollar, ten cents for every dollar of Federal funding.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This research is being conducted at the Vermont
Agricultural Experiment Station.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The work from this project, relative to maple tree
physiology and management of maple stands has been completed. The
objective of identify sources of heavy metals in maple syrup products
and subsequently reducing them is underway. The anticipated completion
date is 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Project proposals and progress reports are reviewed and
evaluated annually by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Satisfactory
progress has been made on tree physiology and maple tree (sugar bush)
management. Progressive work on identifying sources and controlling
maple syrup contaminants is in place and is being monitored by the
department.
MEADOWFOAM, OREGON
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the grant.
Answer. This funding will be used to: develop meadowfoam cultivars
with increased seed yield, lodging resistance, oil concentration, and
insect resistance; increase seed, field test and deploy several new
experimental cultivars; enhance the genome map of meadowfoam; develop
DNA markers for molecular breeding and genetic analysis in meadowfoam;
and map genes affecting self-pollination, seed yield, oil content, and
insect resistance. The proposal will be internally and externally
reviewed for scientific merit. This research will be reviewed by State
and Federal scientists and administrators for merit and progress.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. This research is needed to increase the productivity of
meadowfoam as an edible and industrial oilseed crop. Meadowfoam oil is
a basic feedstock for lubricants, cosmetics, and personal care
products. Oregon State University has recently developed a food grade
meadowfoam oil that should open edible oil markets for this crop. This
research is needed to expand the range of production of meadowfoam and
to supply United States farmers with competitive cultivars (varieties)
for commercial production.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to increase the
productivity of meadowfoam as an oilseed crop for United States
farmers. This research led to the development of a new variety of
meadowfoam that outyielded existing cultivars by 800 kilograms per
hectare in 1999. Seed increases and advanced field tests are underway
for this cultivar. Significant progress was made on the development of
high-throughput DNA markers for use in molecular breeding. These
markers are being used to elucidate the genetics of several
economically important traits in meadowfoam.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in 1999 and the
appropriation for fiscal year 1999 was $300,000, and for fiscal year
2000, $300,000. A total of $600,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-Federal funds have not been provided.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The breeding research is being conducted at Corvallis,
Oregon. Cultivars are being field tested at four sites in the western
United States including Corvallis and Medford, Oregon, Mt. Vernon
Washington, and Davis, California, and three sites in the eastern
United States including Blacksburg, Virginia, and two as yet
unspecified sites.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional and related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
is June 2001. Progress has been made towards each of the stated
objectives; however, we are still in the middle of the first year and
thus cannot fully report on progress. To date, the first field
experiments were planted in October 1999 and will be harvested in July
2000. Results will be assessed after harvest.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Evaluation of this project will conducted annually based on
the annual progress report and discussions with the principal
investigator as appropriate. The evaluation is conducted by the
cognizant staff scientist who has determined that research to date is
in accordance with the mission of the agency.
MICHIGAN BIOTECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM
Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Michigan Biotechnology Consortium grant.
Answer. The objective of the Consortium's research program is to
develop bioprocessing technology to manufacture products from
agricultural raw materials; to increase the utilization of agricultural
raw materials; reduce agricultural surpluses; degrade agricultural and
associated wastes, thereby decreasing environmental costs of
agricultural products and processes; and to reduce the need to import
foreign petroleum.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that the development of
value-added products from agricultural raw materials will increase
their utilization, reduce commodity surpluses and environmental costs
and decrease the need for foreign petroleum thus contributing
significantly to local, regional and national priorities. Biotechnology
research of national significance could potentially be supported by
competitive grants awarded under the National Research Initiative or
the Initiative for Future Food and Agricultural Systems.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this research is to select and develop market-
viable technologies for the production of industrial products from
agricultural raw materials. The Consortium has used funding from the
Special Grants program to develop technologies now in the marketplace.
Examples include the production of lactic acid from corn which resulted
in the building of a $200 million plant in Nebraska. Agricultural
resources were used as a feedstock for plant growth formulations that
enhance productivity and reduce plant stress, biodegradable plastic
resins for compostable films used in lawn/leaf litter bags,
agricultural mulch films, etc., biodegradable plastic resins for
injection molded products such as disposable cutlery, all-natural food
flavors, calcium magnesium acetate deicer and biodegradable adhesives.
The byproduct of cheese production (whey) was used to produce high
quality, high value optically pure chiral intermediates for
pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals.
A sand/manure separation system for dairy farms was developed to
cost-effectively separate manure from sand and recycle both components.
Numerous enzymes have been characterized and are now in use to provide
value added modifications in the processing of agricultural products.
Improved methods to clean up herbicides, pesticides and other
agricultural materials have been developed. Many of the technologies
developed have been commercialized through several licenses and eight
new company startups.
Special Grant funding in fiscal year 1999 allowed the Consortium to
develop high value animal feeds from agricultural residues, paint
removers, biobased polymers for medical applications, liquid crystals
and metals recovery, naturally occurring bioactive compounds and
biocontrol agents, inks that are not hazardous aromatic products, fruit
brandy, specialty mushrooms and methods to improve the economics of
ethanol production. Funding also supported a technology transfer
program that brought researchers from over 30 land grant universities,
Federal laboratories and State Departments of Agriculture together with
Consortium researchers to review numerous commercially promising
biobased agricultural technologies.
Question. How long has this work been under way and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1989, $1,750,000; fiscal year 1990, $2,160,000;
fiscal year 1991, $2,246,000; fiscal years 1992-1993, $2,358,000 per
year; fiscal year 1994, $2,217,000; fiscal year 1995, $1,995,000;
fiscal years 1996 and 1997, $750,000 per year; and fiscal years 1998
through 2000, $675,000 per year. A total of $18,609,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds provided for this grant were as
follows: $1,750,000--State of Michigan, $160,000--industry and
$1,000,000 from miscellaneous in 1991; $1,750,000--State of Michigan,
$175,000--industry and $1,000,000 from miscellaneous in 1992;
$1,750,000--State of Michigan, $100,000 from industry in 1993;
$1,750,000--State of Michigan, $175,000--industry and $100,000 from
miscellaneous in 1994; $200,000--State of Michigan, $2,035,000 from
industry in 1995; $1,250,000--State of Michigan, $350,000--industry and
$6,000,000 from miscellaneous in 1996; $402,000--industry and
$10,000,000 from miscellaneous in 1997; $500,000--State of Michigan and
$1,060,000 from industry in 1998; and $1,400,000--State of Michigan and
$1,356,000 from industry in 1999. A total of $34,263,500 has been
provided to support this work by non-Federal sources.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being conducted on the campus of Michigan
State University and at the Michigan Biotechnology Institute
International. Demonstrations of technology occur throughout the United
States.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The Consortium reports specific milestones for technology
development over a five year period. Specific milestones for
technologies which will be commercialized in fiscal year 1999 were
established in fiscal year 1995 and updated annually. The Consortium
has been successful in effectively closing the gap between research and
commercialization in the five-year period.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The Michigan Biotechnology Institute was evaluated for
scientific merit by an agency peer review panel on February 25, 1999.
The panel recommended approval of the project pending receipt of
supplemental information on administrative aspects of the project. A
merit review panel will be convened to re-evaluate of the project upon
receipt of a proposal for fiscal year 2000.
MIDWEST ADVANCED FOOD MANUFACTURING ALLIANCE, NEBRASKA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance
grant.
Answer. The stated purpose of the Midwest Advanced Food
Manufacturing Alliance is to expedite the development of new
manufacturing and processing technologies for food and related products
derived from United States produced crops and livestock. The Alliance
involves research scientists in food science and technology, food
engineering, nutrition, microbiology, computer science, and other
relevant areas from 12 leading Midwestern universities and private
sector researchers from numerous U.S. food processing companies.
Specific research projects are awarded on a competitive basis to
university scientists with matching funds from non-Federal sources for
research involving the processing, packaging, storage, and
transportation of food products. Projects selected for funding are
merit reviewed by non-participating university scientists, industry
scientists and scientists from professional organizations. Close
cooperation between corporate and university researchers assure that
the latest scientific advances are applied to the most relevant
problems and that solutions are efficiently transferred and used by the
private sector.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
project?
Answer. The principal researcher believes the food manufacturing
industry is the number one manufacturing industry in the Midwestern
region and that opportunities for trade in high value processed food
products will grow exponentially on a worldwide basis. The Alliance is
positioned to fill the void in longer range research and development
for the food industry. Though the focus is regional, it is anticipated
that impacts may also be local and national.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal, as stated previously, was to expedite the
development of new manufacturing and processing technologies for food
and related products derived from United States produced crops and
livestock. This is accomplished by conducting a research proposal
competition among faculty from the 12 participating universities to
fund research projects where matching funds are available from
industry. Fourteen projects were funded from fiscal year 1994 funds
with completion and final reports due by May 1, 1996. Ten projects were
funded from fiscal year 1995 funds with anticipated completion and
final reports due by August 31, 1997. Ten projects were also funded
from fiscal year 1996 funds with anticipated completion and final
reports due by May 31, 1998. Eleven projects were funded from fiscal
year 1997 funds with anticipated completion and final reports due by
May 31, 1999. Nine projects were funded from fiscal year 1998 funds
with anticipated completion and final reports due by May 31, 2000.
Eleven projects were funded from fiscal year 1999 funds with
anticipated completion and final reports due by May 31, 2001. Proposals
are reviewed for scientific merit by independent scientists, and final
selection of projects includes consideration of industrial interest and
commitment on non-Federal matching funds.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994.
The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $470,000, and for fiscal
years 1995-2000, $423,000 each year. A total of $3,008,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Industry matching funds were $823,148 in fiscal year 1994,
$414,164 in fiscal year 1995, $576,600 in fiscal year 1996, $429,579 in
fiscal year 1997, $557,549 in fiscal year 1998, and $490,496 in fiscal
year 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work is being coordinated by the Nebraska Agricultural
Experiment Station at Lincoln. Specific research projects are also
being conducted at 8 other universities that are part of the Alliance.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
Answer. The overall objectives of the Alliance are ongoing. Funding
supports the continuing and evolving needs and opportunities for foods
manufactured and processed from U.S. produced crops and livestock.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of the
proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual basis.
A review of the proposal was conducted on February 24, 1999. The
principal investigator has provided descriptions of projects funded by
this grant. Scientifically sound, industry-relevant projects appear to
be the basis of the project, with impact results expected.
MIDWEST AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, IOWA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the Midwest Agricultural Products program.
Answer. The Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information
Center does applied research to improve the global competitiveness and
marketability of agricultural products produced in the Midwest and
disseminates the results to small and medium-sized agribusinesses.
Projects include analyses of potential international markets for U.S.
agricultural products and equipment/technology; attitudes of foreign
consumers; development of new/improved U.S. products to meet foreign
needs. The overall project proposal was peer reviewed at the university
level, and individual research activities are reviewed by the principal
investigator and other faculty.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that agribusiness firms
in the United States, especially small to medium-sized firms, have a
large unrealized potential to expand export sales and foreign business
ventures. These untapped opportunities exist in the Pacific Rim and in
emerging markets such as Mexico, China, and Eastern Europe. The
reluctance of small to medium-sized firms to explore these market
opportunities is, in part, due to the high cost of market information
and analysis and the perceived high risk of doing business in new
markets. This project meets the needs of these firms at the local,
regional, and national level.
Question. What was the original goal of this research, and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal is to enhance the exports of agricultural
commodities, value-added products, and equipment produced by Midwestern
agribusiness firms by providing research and educational programs as
well as assistance to individual firms. Recent results include studies
on improving the U.S. position in world soybean trade; global
competitiveness of U.S. pork subsector; challenges and responses for
marketing in large developing Asian countries such as China and India.
The soybean study focused on the ability of U.S. firms to provide
quality products designed for specific international market uses.
Analyses of international markets include Hungary and the Baltic
States. Several market development studies, conducted in cooperation
with overseas firms, have resulted in ongoing relationships with U.S.
firms; an Iowa firm is negotiating a sale of feed processing equipment;
another Iowa firm has formed a joint venture in ovine genetics. The
primary audience is small- to medium-sized agribusiness firms because
they often lack the resources to conduct studies or acquire sufficient
marketing information necessary for international trade.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1992.
The appropriation for fiscal years 1992-1993 was $700,000 per year;
fiscal year 1994, $658,000; and fiscal years 1995-2000, $592,000 per
year. A total of $5,610,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $185,495 State appropriations and $373,897 industry for
a total of $559,392 in 1992; $183,192 State appropriations and $318,966
industry for a total of $502,158 in 1993; $127,948 State appropriations
and $500,394 industry for a total of $628,342 in 1994; $258,053 State
appropriations and $389,834 industry for a total of $647,887 for 1995;
$165,425 State appropriations for 1996; $162,883 State appropriations
for 1997; and $143,850 State appropriations and $51,384 industry for a
total of $195,234 in 1998. $72,934 State appropriations and $45,860
industry for a total of $118,794 in 1999. Industry contributions were
not reported for fiscal years 1996 to 1997.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The program is carried out by Iowa State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1992 was for a period of 24
months, however, the objective of expanding the export capacity of
small to medium-sized agribusiness firms is an ongoing regional and
national concern. The current phase of the program will be completed in
2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in January
1998, as it evaluated the project proposal for 1999, and concluded that
``the project has sound objectives and procedures that are helping
agribusiness effectively expand markets for U.S. agricultural products
leading to a highly competitive agricultural production system and
enhanced economic opportunity for Americans.'' Research results appear
in several peer-reviewed professional journals and the popular press.
MILK SAFETY, PENNSYLVANIA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the milk safety grant.
Answer. The overall goal of the milk safety program is to provide
insight into factors that help ensure an adequate and safe milk supply.
The research has focused on factors that affect milk production,
processing, manufacturing, and consumption; including computer models
for risk assessment. Special attention has been given to ways of
preventing and/or treating pathogens that enter the milk supply.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that the question of
microbial safety is of paramount interest to the milk/dairy industry at
all levels--national, regional and local. Dairy products have been
associated with several large outbreaks of staphylococcal food
poisoning. Coagulase negative Staphylococcus, Listeria monocytogenes
and pathogenic E. coli species, including E. coli O157:H7, are of
public health concern. The population of infants, elderly, and
immunosuppressed individuals at highest risk in the U.S. continues to
grow rapidly. Understanding the growth of these microorganisms will
provide pathways to minimize the occurrence of food poisoning related
to milk and dairy products. For products which receive minimal thermal
processing or which may be preserved primarily by acidification,
development of additional means of controlling the growth of these
foodborne pathogens is of critical importance in guaranteeing a safe
milk supply. Ensuring the safety of dairy products impacts not only
consumer health and confidence in the safety of the food supply, but
economic viability as well.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The research is aimed at minimizing or eliminating future
foodborne disease outbreaks from milk and dairy products. Researchers
demonstrated that when subjected to a sublethal heat shock prior to
pasteurization, Listeria monocytogenes becomes much more heat-resistant
than previously thought, likely requiring the design of new
pasteurization guidelines to ensure the safety of dairy products. They
also developed a simple, fast, sensitive, specific and inexpensive
method for the detection of Listeria monocytogenes in dairy products
that will allow dairy processors to rapidly and easily screen for the
presence of this pathogen in their products and in the processing
environment. A computer model of Listeria monocytogenes growth in dairy
foods under dynamic refrigeration conditions and during extended
storage has been developed and partially validated. This will equip
producers and processors with a powerful tool for further enhancing the
safety of fluid milk and dairy product. Discoveries of factors
influencing growth of Staphylococcus aureus could be used to prevent or
contain growth of this pathogen in foods. Researchers have identified
and sequenced a gene from this bacterium that is essential for growth
under stressful conditions. Consumer research has identified
characteristics of consumers most likely to have a high general concern
about milk and dairy product safety and nutrition. In addition,
consumers indicate more trust in farmers' efforts to ensure food safety
than in the efforts of other segments of the food system. Research has
also indicated that consumers are concerned about food safety, but do
not know a great deal about such important hazards as Salmonella, E.
coli, and Listeria. Researchers have examined the effects of water
availability on the production of enterotoxins by S. aureus and found
that the presence of certain nutrients within the environment, or food
product, can greatly stimulate enterotoxin production when water
availability is low. These results have important implications
concerning the safety of certain food products, including those
containing dairy ingredients.
Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded for milk consumption and milk
safety from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal years 1986 through
1989, $285,000 per year; fiscal year 1990, $281,000; fiscal year 1991,
$283,000; fiscal year 1992, $284,000; fiscal year 1993, $184,000;
fiscal years 1994-1998, $268,000 per year; fiscal year 1999, $250,000,
and fiscal year 2000 $297,500 A total of $4,059,500 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The University estimates that non-Federal funds contributed
to this project include the following costs and salaries: $265,000 for
fiscal year 1991; $224,700 for fiscal year 1992; $142,600 for fiscal
year 1993; $252,168 for fiscal year 1995; and $621,903 for fiscal year
1998; and $460,423 for fiscal year 1999. No data available for fiscal
years 1994, 1996, and 1997.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being conducted at the Pennsylvania State
University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
Answer. The researchers anticipate that research supported by this
grant should be concluded in 2000. Continuing and evolving needs
related to the safety of milk and dairy products are expected to reveal
new related objectives.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of the
proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual basis.
The proposal supporting the fiscal year 1999 appropriation was reviewed
on August 12,1999 and the agency science specialist concluded that the
projects addressed important issues related to safety of milk and dairy
products, were scientifically sound, and that satisfactory progress was
being demonstrated using previously awarded grant funds.
MINOR USE ANIMAL DRUGS
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the minor use animal drug program grant.
Answer. The National Agricultural Program to Approve Animal Drugs
for Minor Species and Uses--NRSP-7--was established to obtain the Food
and Drug Administration approval of animal drugs intended for use in
minor species and for minor uses in major species. The objectives of
the program are to identify the animal drug needs for minor species and
minor uses in major species; generate and disseminate data for the
safe, effective, and legal use of drugs used primarily in therapy or
reproductive management of minor animal species; and facilitate the
Food and Drug Administration in obtaining approvals for minor uses.
Studies are conducted to determine efficacy, target animal safety,
human food safety, and environmental safety. The shortage of drugs for
minor food animal uses is a concern well recognized by animal
producers, veterinarians, animal scientists, and regulators. The funds
for the special research grant are divided between the four regional
animal drug coordinators and the headquarters at Cornell University for
support of the drug approval program. The NRSP-7 funds are being
utilized by the State Agricultural Experiment Stations where the
regional animal drug coordinators are located as well as by other
stations to develop data required for meeting approval requirements.
Participants in the research program consist of the regional
coordinators, State Agricultural Experiment Stations, USDA's
Agricultural Research Service, schools of veterinary medicine, and the
pharmaceutical companies. Research priorities are continually updated
through workshops and meetings with producer groups representing
species categories such as small ruminants, game birds, fur-bearing
animals, and aquaculture species. Each request for drug approval is
evaluated by the technical committee according to established criteria
which include significance to the animal industry, cost of developing
the necessary data, availability of a pharmaceutical sponsor, and food
safety implications. All grants are reviewed for relevance to industry
needs and undergo scientific peer review.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. Animal agriculture throughout the United States has relied
on chemical and pharmaceutical companies to provide their industry safe
and efficacious drugs to combat diseases and parasites. The high cost
incurred to obtain data to approve these drugs, when coupled with
limited economic returns, has limited the availability of approved
drugs for minor uses and minor species. The economic losses due to the
unavailability of drugs to producers for minor species and minor uses
threatens the economic viability of some segments of the animal
industry. The need for approved drugs to control diseases in minor
species and for minor uses in major species has increased with
intensified production units and consumer demand for residue-free meat
and animal products. The program provides research needed to develop
and ultimately culminate in drug approval by FDA for the above
purposes. The goals are accomplished through the use of regional animal
drug coordinators as well as a national coordinator to prioritize the
need, secure investigators at Federal, State and private institutions,
and oversee the research and data compilation necessary to meet Federal
regulations for approval. All drug approvals are national, although
industry use may be regional. For example, certain aquaculture and the
game bird industries are concentrated in specific geographic sections
of the country. The administration believes this research supports
national, regional and local needs.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the NRSP-7 Minor Use Animal Drug
Program was to obtain approval by the Food and Drug Administration for
animal drugs intended for use in minor species and for minor uses in
major species. This continues to remain the dominant goal of the
program. In recent years, the research program has expanded or given
additional emphasis to aquaculture species, veal calves and sheep. The
importance of environmental assessment, residue withdrawals and
occupational safety have increasingly been given more attention during
the approval process to help assure consumer protection.
Since the beginning of the program, over 300 requests have been
received from animal producers, universities and veterinarians for the
development of data in support of the filing of a New Animal Drug
Approval. Currently, data representing 28 Public Master Files have been
published in the Federal. The Public Master File publication enables
pharmaceutical companies to extend their label claims to minor species
by referencing the published file in their New Animal Drug Approval
filing. Furthermore, these data also enter the public domain as
presentations to professional groups, publication of peer-reviewed
articles and inclusion in the Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank.
Through these channels, NRSP-7 provides data supporting the safe and
effective use of therapeutics in minor species by consumers. Moreover,
the Minor Use Animal Drug Program has averaged an expenditure of only
about $200,000 for each drug approved for minor species.
In 1999, two Public Master Files, based on data submitted by NRSP-
7, were published in the Federal Register indicating drug approval by
the Food and Drug Administration. They were: Sulfadimethoxine/
ormetoprim for control of coccidiosis in Chukar partridges and
amoxicillin for treatment of bacterial pneumonia in sheep. In addition,
three Public Master Files were submitted to the Food and Drug
Administration by NRSP-7 for review. The three drugs and their use are:
oxytetracycline for otolith marking of fish, ceftiofur for bacterial
pneumonia in goats, and ivermectin pour-on for hypodemosis in American
bison. In addition to the development of data for Food and Drug
Administration review, the NRSP-7 program initiated a species grouping
program. Designed to make the drug approval process more efficient for
all minor species, research was begun that will enable game birds and
fish to be evaluated on the basis of one or two marker species. With
species grouping, safety and efficacy studies of a drug in one species
could be extrapolated to other species within the same class.
Considering that the aquatic and game bird classes contain at present
10 and 8 economically significant production species, respectively,
rates of Public Master File publications could be increased many-fold.
The Center for Veterinary Medicine of the Food and Drug Administration
is cooperating and supporting this program to the fullest extent,
thereby demonstrating a prime example of Federal interagency
collaboration in coordination with academic institutions,
pharmaceutical industries and commodity interests to effectively meet
an urgent public health need.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from appropriated funds in the
amount of $240,000 per year for fiscal years 1982-85; $229,000 per year
for fiscal years 1986-1989; $226,000 for fiscal year 1990; $450,000 for
fiscal year 1991; $464,000 per year for fiscal years 1992 and 1993;
$611,000 for fiscal year 1994; and $550,000 per year for fiscal years
1995-2000. A total of $7,391,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $156,099 State appropriations, $29,409 industry
contributions and $11,365 miscellaneous in 1991; $265,523 State
appropriations, $1,182 product sales, $10,805 industry contributions
and $59 miscellaneous in 1992; $212,004 State appropriations, $315
industry contributions and $103 miscellaneous in 1993; $157,690 State
appropriations and $7,103 miscellaneous in 1994; $84,359 State
appropriations in 1995; $191,835 non-Federal support in 1996; $357,099
non-Federal support in 1997; $104,596 State appropriations and $97,375
industry contributions in 1998; and $317,225 State appropriations and
$9,678 industry contributions, and $7,000 miscellaneous in 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The grants have been awarded to the four regional animal
drug coordinators located at Cornell University, the University of
Florida, Michigan State University and the University of California-
Davis, and to program Headquarters at Cornell University. Research is
conducted at these universities and through allocation of these funds
for specific experiments at the State Agricultural Experiment Stations,
the Agricultural Research Service, the U.S. Department of Interior, and
in conjunction with several pharmaceutical companies.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
Answer. Selected categories of the Special Research Grants program
address important national/regional research initiatives. The overall
objectives established cooperatively with FDA and industry remain
valid. However, specific objectives continually are met and revised to
reflect the changing priorities for FDA, industry, and consumers.
Research projects for this program have involved 20 different animal
and aquaculture species with emphasis given in recent years to research
on drugs for the expanding aquaculture industry and increasing number
of requests from the sheep, veal calf, and game bird industries. The
program involves research on biological systems that by their nature
are ever changing and presenting new challenges and/or threats to
agriculture.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency conducted a formal review of the Minor Use
Animal Drug Program in 1997. An external review team of experts
representing animal drug research and development, the veterinary
profession, the pharmaceutical industry, and academia, found the
program to be very productive. Recommendations from the review included
(1) improve the visibility of the Minor Use Animal Drug Program, (2)
improve working relationships with the veterinary and pharmaceutical
communities, (3) and acquire additional support for the program by
pharmaceutical companies, universities, and the Federal Government to
meet the identified national needs with emphasis on responsiveness to
industry needs and food and environmental safety. In 1999, stakeholders
representing the sheep, aquaculture, goat, and game bird industries met
with CSREES administration and NRSP-7 representatives to define
research priorities for the Minor Use Animal Drug Program. Annually,
grant proposals are scientifically peer reviewed and twice a year the
agency and program representatives meet with the Food and Drug
Administration representatives to evaluate progress and to prioritize
research requests. Workshops are held periodically to identify
priorities for the program whereby producers, pharmaceutical companies,
FDA, and researchers participate.
MOLLUSCAN SHELLFISH, OREGON
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Molluscan Shellfish grant.
Answer. The agency requested that the university submit a grant
proposal that has yet to be received. A molluscan shellfish germplasm
repository was established with funds from this grant and has played a
key role in the genetic improvement of cultured shellfish stocks on the
west coast. With specific shellfish stocks that are being made
available to commercial growers, a broodstock selection program is
currently underway to determine stocks with traits desirable for
commercial culture. Additionally, the repository is used to establish a
population of tetraploid pacific oysters for use in the production in
triploid oysters and has established a population of Kumamoto oysters.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The researchers indicate that there is a national need for
a molluscan broodstock development program. This line of research will
benefit the commercial shellfish industries on the west coast and
nationally through the conservation of shellfish lines with desirable
traits, studies involving genetic manipulation to increase disease
resistance and enhance growth, and judicious husbandry practices
utilizing molluscan shellfish resources.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goals of this research program are to establish a
repository for molluscan shellfish germplasm, to establish breeding
programs for commercial production of molluscan shellfish, and to
establish a resource center for the industry researchers, and other
interested parties in the United States and abroad. The oyster
broodstock selection program was implemented in partnership with
industry and performance trials of selected stocks continue at
commercial sites. Tetraploid oysters are being produced for use in the
production of triploid seedstock to be used in commercial production
trials. A temperature-controlled algae culture facility has been
constructed to provide adequate nutrition to the oysters used in the
studies. Oyster broodstock conditioning systems have been developed and
in 1999, over 120 families were evaluated at commercial sites
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1995
with an appropriation of $250,000; fiscal year 1996 was $300,000; and
$400,000 in each of fiscal years 1997 through 2000. A total of
$2,150,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The university estimates a total of $135,454 of non-Federal
funding in fiscal year 1995 primarily from State sources; in fiscal
years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, no cost sharing was provided.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted at Oregon State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Specific research objectives outlined in the original
proposal were completed in 1996. Researchers have broadened the scope
of the project from the original objectives and it is anticipated that
these objectives will be completed in 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The proposal is put though the university's peer review
process and is reviewed on an annual basis by the Program Managers, the
Program Specialist, and is consistent with United States Department of
Agriculture guidelines. The researchers are asked to the develop a
research proposal consistent with the National Science and Technology
Council's Strategic Plan for Aquaculture Research and Development. The
university is required to submit an accomplishment report when the new
proposal is submitted to the agency for funding. The 1999 review
concluded that the researchers were well qualified and work in close
cooperation with the private sector. Progress on previous work is well
documented and the work complements other research being funded though
the United States Department of Agriculture on molluscan shellfish.
MULTI-CROPPING STRATEGIES FOR AQUACULTURE, HAWAII
Question. Please provide a description of the research funded under
the Multi-Cropping Strategies for aquaculture research grant in Hawaii.
Answer. The agency requested that the university submit a grant
proposal that has yet to be received. The original goal of this program
was to identify and develop sustainable and commercial opportunities
inherent in the Molokai aquaculture community while maintaining the
cultural and physical environment unique to Molokai. In fiscal year
1993, the university redirected this research program to address the
opportunities of alternative aquaculture production systems, including
the ancient Hawaiian fish ponds on the island of Molokai. A community-
based research identification process has been used to identify and
develop specific research projects and prioritize objectives in this
program. Current research includes work in the area of water quality
characterization to accelerate permitting of aquaculture systems. Field
testing of alternative species in the ancient Hawaiian fish ponds also
continues.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researchers indicate that the primary need
for this research is to assist the native Hawaiians in improving the
profitability and sustainability of the ancient Hawaiian fish ponds and
other appropriate aquaculture systems as part of a total community
development program on the Island of Molokai.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this program was to develop technology
for the co-production of shrimp and oysters in aquacultural production
systems. Research led to the development of oyster production systems
that have been field tested under commercial conditions. The objective
of the program is to implement sustainable subsistence and commercial
development of Molokai fish ponds while maintaining the culture and
physical environment unique to Molokai. Production methods have been
developed for native species including Pacific threadfin, Moi, and
seaweed and studies involving shrimp and ornamental fish production are
underway. Additionally, studies addressing water quality issues
necessary for permitting of the ancient Hawaiian fish ponds for
aquaculture are being conducted.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. This research was initiated in fiscal year 1987 and
$152,000 per year was appropriated in fiscal years 1987 through 1989.
The fiscal year 1990-1993 appropriations were $150,000 per year;
$141,000 in fiscal year 1994; and $127,000 in fiscal years 1995-2000,
each year. A total of $1,959,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The university reports a total of $137,286 of non-Federal
funding for this program in fiscal years 1991-1994, $318,468 in fiscal
years 1995-1996, $116,730 in fiscal year 1997, $197,000 in fiscal year
1998, and no non-Federal funds are available for this project for
fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted through the University of
Hawaii on the island of Molokai.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The completion date for the original project was 1993. The
original objectives were met. The specific research outlined in the
current proposal will be completed in fiscal year 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The proposal is placed through the university's peer-review
process, is reviewed by the Program Managers and Program Specialist on
an annual basis, and is consistent with United States Department of
Agriculture guidelines. The researchers are asked to the develop a
research proposal consistent with the National Science and Technology
Council's Strategic Plan for Aquaculture Research and Development. The
university is required to provide an accomplishment report when the new
grant proposal is submitted to the agency for funding. Adequate
progress has been reported on specific tasks by agency-funded personnel
and activities. The research is relevant and addresses an important
opportunity for the aquaculture industry on Molokai.
MULTI-COMMODITY RESEARCH, OREGON
Question. Please provide a description of the research done under
the Multi-Commodity Research program?
Answer. This research provides agricultural market research and
analysis to support Pacific Northwest producers and agribusiness in
penetrating new and expanding Pacific Rim markets for value-added
products. It examines the potential for increasing the competitiveness
of Pacific Northwest agriculture through improvements in food
production, processing, and trade by assisting decision makers in
developing economic and business strategies. The research proposal was
peer reviewed at the university prior to submission to CSREES.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Oregon and other Pacific Northwest States produce a wide
variety of agricultural commodities and products with export potential
to Pacific Rim countries. Research and analysis are necessary to guide
agricultural producers and processors in assessing markets, developing
market strategies, and creating appropriate value-added products.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this research project is to gain better
specific understanding of the technical, economic, and social
relationships that define Oregon's value-added agricultural sector, and
examine how these factors affect the economic performance of the
sector. This project investigates and develops innovations in value-
added agriculture to improve the economic performance of the
agricultural and food manufacturing sectors in the Pacific Northwest.
Work in progress has resulted in research output in four topic
areas: market research, packaging research, sensory research, and food
processing industry strategic planning. Output includes development of
a World Wide Web site for PNW exports, data bases, survey work, and
collaborative research activity with industry and with institute and
university researchers in selected Asian countries. Many high quality
manuscripts, working papers, journal articles, and graduate theses have
been produced.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The research began in fiscal year 1993. The appropriation
for fiscal year 1993 was $300,000; fiscal year 1994, $282,000; and
fiscal years 1995 through 2000, $364,000 for each year. The total
amount appropriated is $2,766,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-Federal funding for this grant $177,574 in State
appropriations in 1993, and $162,394 in 1994. The project involves the
use of Oregon State University administrative personnel, equipment,
utilities and facilities that are indirect costs to the project. These
costs constitute an Oregon State University contribution to the project
that is not allowable as a reimbursable expense. Because the Oregon
State appropriations process penalizes the University for reporting
nonreimbursed indirect costs, the university has not reported the
amount of non-Federal funds appropriated for fiscal years 1995-2000.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The research is carried out at Oregon State University in
Corvallis, and at the Northwest Food Innovation Center in Portland,
Oregon.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1993 was for a period of 12
months, however, the goal of enhancing Oregon's value-added
agricultural sector in an ongoing regional and national concern.
Progress on the original objectives is as follows: baseline data have
been accumulated; an economic growth assessment model is being refined;
global competitiveness is being assessed for value-added Pacific
Northwest agricultural products; targets for performance are being
worked out with agricultural industries; and trade teams have been
involved in assessing the ability of U.S. based industries to meet the
demands for noodle production for Asian markets. The current phase of
the program will be completed in 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in January
1999, as it evaluated the 1999 project proposal, and determined that:
``This institution has a highly productive history regarding this
research. Outputs and accomplishments in 1998 include 4 scientific
journal articles and 1 scientific paper presentation; participation in
8 domestic and 2 international professional, scientific and industry
meetings; participation on 2 multistate research committees; completion
of 2 MS theses and 1 Ph.D. dissertation; and 1 patent application.''
NATIONAL BIOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the National Biological Impact Assessment Program grant.
Answer. The National Biological Impact Assessment Program supports
the environmentally responsible use of biotechnology products to
benefit agriculture and the environment. This grant provides funding
for the Information Systems for Biotechnology which is a national
resource in agricultural biotechnology information. The Information
Systems for Biotechnology provides information to the research
community regarding biotechnology regulations and the environmental
issues associated with small and large scale releases of genetically
modified organisms. It provides searchable databases, documents and
resource lists on the internet, a monthly News Report with over 2,200
subscribers, custom software to assist in risk assessment and
management, and printed reference materials.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The National Biological Impact Assessment Program provides
information on biotechnology not found anywhere else. This program
fulfills an important national need to provide scientists easy access
to relevant information that will facilitate conducting research that
complies with the oversight and regulatory requirements for testing
biotechnology products, and foster the safe application of
biotechnology to benefit agriculture and the environment. The
Information System for Biotechnology was the first on-line system to
address the rapidly expanding information needs of the agricultural
biotechnology research community and institutional biosafety
committees. It continues to be one of the most comprehensive sources of
information on this topic.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal was to facilitate and assess the safe
application of new techniques for the genetic modification of plants,
animals and microorganisms to benefit agriculture and the environment.
Since its inception in 1989, the Program has developed tools and
resources to provide scientists, regulators, teachers, administrators,
and the interested public with value-added information in a readily
accessible form. It has developed into a sophisticated computer-based
information system and internet site that responds to more than 4200
requests per month from over 40 countries. The site carries documents
pertaining to regulatory oversight of biotechnology products, policy
statements, and risk assessment and risk management information.
Searchable databases include records of all environmental releases of
genetically engineered organisms conducted under authority of the
Department of Agriculture, institutional biosafety committees, State
regulatory contacts, biotechnology research centers and companies. A
monthly News Report, covering research, regulatory, legal and
international issues, is distributed to 1700 e-mail and 500 print
subscribers. Biosafety training workshops have been conducted for
public and private sector scientists and State regulatory officials. A
major recent activity was publication of the proceedings of a risk
assessment workshop on Ecological Effects of Pest Resistance Genes in
Managed Ecosystems, that was held January 31-February 3, 1999. Over 800
copies have been distributed by request. Also, a guidebook for safely
conducting transgenic research in greenhouses titled ``Greenhouse
Research with Transgenic Plants and Microbes: A Common Sense Guide to
Containment'' has been published.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1989, $125,000; fiscal year 1990, $123,000; fiscal
years 1991-1993, $300,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $282,000; and
fiscal years 1995-2000, $254,000 per year. A total of $2,954,000 has
been appropriated. There are no other potential sources of funding from
other Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
programs.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Virginia Tech contributes administrative and clerical
support which amounts to approximately $5000 per year.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The grant award is with Virginia Tech. Current partners in
the program include the University of Minnesota and the Institute for
Biotechnology Information.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Ensuring the environmentally responsible use of
agricultural biotechnology products is an ongoing and important task.
Opportunities for plant and animal improvement through biotechnology
are expanding as more genes are identified and new methods are
developed for introducing specific, beneficial genes into plant and
animal populations. As these genetically enhanced crops and livestock
are adopted commercially, assuring long term safety and efficacy will
be a high national priority.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. An external panel of scientists reviewed this program in
1994. The review report was highly complimentary of this project and
recommended continuation of the program. Another external review is
being planned for the year 2000. The current proposal was peer-reviewed
at Virginia Tech prior to submission and was also peer-reviewed by the
agency.
NEMATODE RESISTANCE GENETIC ENGINEERING, NEW MEXICO
Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Nematode Resistance Genetic Engineering Project grant.
Answer. This research is designed to investigate naturally
occurring compounds from diverse sources that may confer pesticidal
resistance if introduced into agronomic plants. The main target pests
are no longer plant parasitic nematodes but include insects as well.
The work is using molecular biological techniques to incorporate genes
into agronomic plants which will shorten the time frame to produce
transgenic plants. This project was not awarded competitively but has
undergone peer review at the university level and merit review at
CSREES.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that the successful
development of these techniques and subsequence transfer of genes with
insecticidal and/or pesticidal activity into agronomic plants will
provide an environmentally sound system for all plants susceptible to
pests. The principal researcher believes that project has the potential
for both regional and national application.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to provide an
alternative approach for the control of plant parasitic nematodes
through the use of molecular biological technologies to transfer
pesticide resistance to plants. More recently, a insecticidal protease
inhibitor gene has been used in transformed plants. A unique technique
utilizing insect intestinal membrane vesicles were used as tools for
detection of specific protein binding domains. The synthetic gene,
CRY3A Bt has been successful for four years in field trails with
transformed potato in managing Colorado potato beetles.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991
and the appropriations for fiscal years 1990-1993 were $150,000 per
year; $141,000 was appropriated in 1994; and $127,000 in fiscal years
1995-2000, each year. A total of $1,353,000 has been appropriated thus
far.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $65,000 State appropriations in 1991; $62,000 in State
appropriations in 1992; $75,000 in State appropriations in 1994; and
$75,000 State appropriations in 1995. For 1996, the University and the
Plant Genetic Engineering Laboratory are providing matching
contributions in faculty and staff salaries, facilities, equipment
maintenance and replacement, and administrative support. In 1997, there
were no matching non-Federal funds. In 1998 and 1999, State
appropriated funds were $48,000 and $71,000, respectively. In 2000, the
non-Federal funds are $70,000.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at the New Mexico State
University, and at collaborating universities in the region.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objectives have not as yet been met. The
estimated completion date for this project is in 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The last evaluation of this project was a merit review
conducted in January, 1999. In summary, the overall goal of this
project is to use molecular technology to develop pesticide capability
in plants of agronomic importance. A plant transformation system was
developed to improve the historically difficult transformation
efficiently of monocots. In field trails of transformed eggplants and
potatoes, high levels of effectiveness against insects have been found.
Other constructs are being used in many crops to determine resistance
to nematodes and other crop pests.
NEVADA ARID RANGELANDS INITIATIVE, NEVADA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the grant.
Answer. The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service has requested the university to submit a grant proposal that
has not yet been received.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The need for this research is to develop management systems
to protect Nevada's arid range land from invasive weeds and wildfires.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research is to develop research
management and educational programs to promote healthy productive and
sustainable use of Nevada rangeland.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2000
and the appropriation for fiscal year 2000 is $255,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. This is a new project. No non-Federal funds have been
provided at this time.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted at the University of Nevada
Research Station.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The project is under development, however anticipated
completion for the original objectives should be 5 years.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project is under development and will be evaluated
prior to funding.
NEW CROP OPPORTUNITIES, ALASKA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the grant.
Answer. Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service has requested the university to submit a grant proposal that
has not yet been received. The research will address the feasibility of
growing wild rice as an alternative crop in Alaska.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. This research addresses a local need to find an alternative
crop for the State of Alaska.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. This grant is new and the research will build upon existing
expertise to offer new opportunities for crop diversification.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2000
and the appropriation for fiscal year 2000 is $425,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Since this is a new grant, and a proposal has not yet been
received, the source and amount of non-Federal funds for this research
is unknown.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This work will be carried at the School of Agriculture and
Land Resources management at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met: What is the
anticipated date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This project is expected to be completed in three years.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the evaluation conducted.
Answer. Since this is a new grant, no evaluation has been
conducted.
NEW CROP OPPORTUNITIES, KENTUCKY
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the grant.
Answer. CSREES has requested the university to submit a grant
proposal that has not yet been received. The research will promote
economically sustainable crop production, new crops, and expanded crop
uses in Kentucky. Improved plant and innovative production systems
through integrated research in plant ecology, biochemistry, physiology
and genetics, will be developed. Technology and information support for
Kentucky farmers and for the economic base of the State will be
provided.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. This research addresses a regional need to find alternative
crops to replace tobacco.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. This grant is new and the research will build upon existing
expertise to offer new opportunities for crop diversification,
technology transfer and demonstrations.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2000
and the appropriation for fiscal year 2000 is $595,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. This is a new grant and no non-Federal funds have been
provided.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This work will be carried at the University of Kentucky and
at various locations across the State.
Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This project is expected to be completed in three years.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the evaluation conducted.
Answer. This is a new grant and no evaluation has been conducted
yet.
NONFOOD AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS PROGRAM, NEBRASKA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Nonfood Agricultural Products Program grant.
Answer. This work focuses on the identification of specific market
niches that can be filled by products produced from agricultural
materials, developing the needed technology to produce the product, and
working with the private sector to transfer the technology into
commercial practice. Major areas of application include starch-based
polymers, use of tallow as diesel fuel, improvements in ethanol
production, use of vegetable oil as drip oil for irrigation wells, as a
two cycle engine oil, and as a chain saw bar oil, production of
levulinic acid, the extraction of wax from grain sorghum and production
of microcrystalline cellulose from crop biomass. The Dean and Director
of Agricultural Research has initiated a review process that parallels
the process used for Experiment Station projects. Two to three faculty
member are asked to critically review the proposal using criteria as
described by Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension
Service in the letter soliciting proposals for 1999.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes our ability to produce
agricultural commodities exceeds our needs for food and feed. These
commodities are environmentally friendly feedstocks which can be used
in the production of many biochemicals and biomaterials that have
traditionally been produced from petroleum. The production of the
commodities and the value-added processing of these commodities is
regional in scope.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The objectives are to identify niche markets for industrial
utilization of agricultural products, improve and develop conversion
processes as needed for specific product isolation and utilization,
provide technical, marketing and business assistance to industries, and
coordinate agricultural industrial materials research at the University
of Nebraska, Lincoln. Accomplishments include commercialization of
soybean based drip oil for irrigation wells. Bruning Grain Co.
Marketing ``Soy Bio Drip.'' MCC Technologies, Inc. continues to refine
the processing requirement and develop a business plan for production
of microcrystalline cellulose from crop residues such as corn cobs,
wheat straw and cellulose via a reactive extrusion process developed by
the university's Industrial Agricultural Products Center. Various
hardness grades of plastic particle media blast using a combination of
commercially available biodegradable polymers have been produced. A
water resistant starch-based foam has been developed and a patent
disclosure has been submitted. A commercialization strategy is being
developed. Also, an alternative process for producing biodiesel has
been developed and will be disclosed soon. All of these
commercialization projects are the result of research efforts, most of
which have been supported by the Nonfood Agricultural Products Program.
Two Small Business Innovation Research, Phase I, proposals have been
funded for technologies developed at the Center. A Phase II proposal is
currently being written on loose fill packaging. A Phase II proposal on
levulinic acid is anticipated.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The funding levels for this project are $109,000 in 1990;
$110,000 per year in fiscal years 1991-1993; $103,000 in fiscal year
1994; $93,000 in fiscal year 1995; and $64,000 in fiscal years 1996-
2000 per year. A total of $955,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funding for this project is: in fiscal year
1992, $315,000; fiscal year 1993, $330,000; fiscal year 1994, $330,000;
fiscal year 1995, $309,000; fiscal year 1996, $251,000; fiscal year
1997 $250,000; fiscal year 1998, $340,000; and fiscal year 1999,
$260,000 . These funds were from Nebraska Corn, Soybean, Wheat, Sorghum
and Beef Boards, World Wildlife Fund, Nebraska Bankers Association,
United Soybean Board and National Corn Growers Association,
Bioplastics, Inc., Biofoam, Inc. and M.C.C. Technologies, Inc.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This work is being conducted at the Industrial Agricultural
Products Center, L.W. Chase Hall, University of Nebraska, East Campus,
Lincoln, Nebraska.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The objectives of the original projects were completed.
Specific objectives have been identified in each renewal request.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This project is evaluated based on the annual progress
report. The cognizant staff scientist has reviewed the project and
determined that the research is conducted in accordance with the
mission of this agency.
OIL RESOURCES FROM DESERT PLANTS, NEW MEXICO
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the Oil Resources from Desert Plants, New Mexico.
Answer. The Plant Genetic Engineering Laboratory has been exploring
the potential for the production of high value industrial oils from
agricultural products. The effort has been focused on transferring the
unique oil producing capability of jojoba into oilseed rape and
soybean. With the development of technology to both isolate the enzyme
components of oil biosynthesis and successfully transform the target
plants, significant advances have been made with jojoba. In addition,
oil enzymes have been studied in castor, oilseed rape, desert primrose,
cyanobacteria, and meadowfoam.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes desert plant sources of
valuable oils for industrial applications are typically low yielding
and limited in climatic areas for farm production. Genetic engineering
offers an opportunity to move genetic capability to high yielding major
crops. Many of the oils and their derivative acids, waxes, and others
can directly substitute for imports of similar polymer materials,
especially petroleum.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the research is to transfer the unique oil
producing capability of jojoba and other native shrubs into higher
yielding crops such as oilseed rape and soybean. This is a form of
metabolic engineering and it requires the transfer of coordinated
groups of genes and enzymes into the host plant to catalyze the
necessary biochemical reactions. Recent progress includes successful
transformation of tobacco and alfalfa plants with oil metabolism genes
from the meadowfoam plant and a cyanobacterium.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. This research began in fiscal year 1989 with a $100,000
grant under the Supplemental and Alternative Crops program. Grants have
been awarded under the Special Research Grants program as follows:
fiscal year 1990, $148,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $200,000 per year;
fiscal year 1994, $188,000; fiscal years 1995-1996, $169,000 each year;
and fiscal years 1997 through 2000, $175,000 per year. A total of
$2,074,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Matching funds from State and private sources used to help
fund this project were $27,747 in fiscal year 1998 and $71,000 in
fiscal year 1999. New Mexico State University and the Plant Genetic
Engineering Laboratory also provide $90,000 for in-kind support per
year including faculty salaries, graduate student stipends, facilities,
equipment maintenance, and administrative support services.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being conducted by the Plant Genetic
Engineering Laboratory at New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New
Mexico.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. An estimate of the total time required to complete all
phases of the project is 3-4 years. The application of this research
for improved management of natural resources will evolve and expand as
technology in the area advances.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The Oil Resources from Desert Plants, New Mexico project
was evaluated for scientific merit by an agency peer review panel on
February 25, 1999. The panel recommended approval of the project
pending receipt of supplemental information on administrative aspects
of the project. The Institution conducts an internal peer review of
this project by scientists with expertise in this area of research. A
panel of scientists will be convened to re-evaluate the project upon
receipt of a proposal for fiscal year 2000.
ORGANIC WASTE UTILIZATION, NEW MEXICO
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Organic Waste Utilization, New Mexico grant.
Answer. Composted dairy waste is utilized as a pretreatment to land
application. Composting dairy waste before land application may
alleviate many of the potential problems associated with dairy waste
use in agronomic production systems. Composting may also add value to
the dairy waste as a potential landscape or potting medium. High
temperatures maintained in the composting process may be sufficient for
killing enteric pathogens and weed seeds in dairy waste. Noxious odors
and water content may be reduced via composting. Composted dairy waste
may be easier to apply, produce better seed beds, and not increase soil
salinity as much as uncomposted dairy waste. Changes in the physical
structure of the soil are being monitored for the effects of composted
vs uncomposted amendments. This project undergoes annual peer review
from academic institutions and experts from government and state
agencies, and industrial partners.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes the research will address
the utilization of dairy waste combined with other high-carbon waste
from agriculture and industry, including potash and paper waste, for
composting. This approach to waste management will have high impact for
states where dairy and agriculture are important industry sectors. This
is especially true for New Mexico and the southwest United States where
the dairy business is growing rapidly. This research will also provide
an additional pollution prevention tool for the industrial sectors
dealing with potash and paper waste. The principal investigator
believes this research to be of local, regional and national
importance.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the research was and continues to
determine the feasibility of simultaneously composting dairy waste from
agriculture and industry. The research will determine effects of
utilizing composted waste, as opposed to raw waste, as a soil amendment
on plant growth, irrigation requirements, and nutrient and heavy metal
uptake. Phase I, to determine the feasibility of simultaneous
composting dairy waste with available high carbon wastes from
agriculture and industry, has been completed. Phase II, to determine
the appropriate ratios of waste to carbon substrate for successful
composting is completed. Phase III, to determine the kinetics of
nutrient release and effects of composted material on heavy metal
uptake will be completed next year. The study of the second and third
year application of the compost will be undertaken this year. This will
identify the long term soil impact resulting from compost application.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1996
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1996 was $150,000, and for fiscal
years 1997 through 2000, $100,000 per year. A total of $550,000 has
been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds for the duration of this grant from
the state appropriation is $75,000. There is another $50,000 in-kind
support from the industrial partners. Additionally, a sum of $15,000
from the New Mexico State Highway Department has been leveraged by this
project.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This work is being carried out in New Mexico under the
direction of the Waste-Management Education and Research Consortium in
collaboration with The Composting Council and industrial partners, such
as Envio in Ohio, Plains Electric, and McKinley Paper in New Mexico.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Completion date of the initial phases I and II was March
2000 and the project has progressed according to the specified targets.
Phase III is ongoing and will be completed by early 2001. Phase IV was
added last year to evaluate the multi-year compost application on
parameters such as plant growth, soil water retention and soil
salinity.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This project has been evaluated based on the semi-annual
progress report and research findings presented at conferences. The
cognizant staff scientist has reviewed the project and determined that
this research is conducted in accordance with the mission of this
agency.
PASTURE & FORAGE RESEARCH, UTAH
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Pasture and Forage Research, Utah grant.
Answer. This is a multidisciplinary effort to develop profitable
and sustainable pasture and forage management systems. The Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service requested Utah State
University to submit a grant proposal that has not yet been received.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The proposed research under this Special Research Grant
will address issues related to forage production and utilization in
Utah.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this project is to develop a
comprehensive guide for the management of irrigated pastures to assist
livestock producers reduce cost and increase net returns.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1997
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1997 was $200,000, and for fiscal
years 1998 through 2000 was $225,000 per year. A total of $875,000 has
been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-federal funds in support of this project and related
activities were $360,200 for 1997, $356,000 for 1998 and $364,000 for
1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted at the Utah Agricultural
Experiment Station.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The principal investigators anticipate the completion date
for these objectives to be in 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The grant is peer reviewed annually through the
institutions project approval process as well as by the agency National
Program Leader and the last on-site review took place in November 1999.
The evaluation summary noted that the program, as implemented at the
farm level, has already produced significant results in addressing
problems of 4-H in Utah and the surrounding area.
PEACH TREE SHORT LIFE IN SOUTH CAROLINA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Peach Tree Short Life in South Carolina grant.
Answer. Progress continued in 1999 with focus on the evaluation and
longevity and productivity of Guardian rootstocks on peach tree short
life sites in the southeast and replant sites throughout North America.
More fundamental work has involved the biochemical characterization of
the egg-kill factor produced by a bacteria on nematode eggs. Other
basic studies involved the cloning of genes associated with production
and expression of toxins from bacteria. New studies were initiated on
the use of solarization to reduce nematode populations for peach tree
replant. This project was not awarded competitively but has undergone
peer review at the university level and merit review at CSREES.
Question. According to the research proposal , or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. According to the principal researcher the problem of
disease on peach, nectarine, and plum trees in the southeastern United
States effects is very great. More than 70 percent of peach acreage in
the southeast is affected. Research continued on the improvement of
rootstocks and the use of the cultivar Guardian BY520-9 which has now
been released in 22 states including California, New Jersey and
Michigan where bacterial canker is a problem.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date.
Answer. The goal of this research was the continued evaluation of
productivity of peach Guardian BY520-9 rootstocks on peach tree short
life and investigations into novel management for ring nematodes by
bacteria. Recent accomplishments include the increase in bulk
commercial production of Guardian seed while two new Guardian
selections have had very good nursery trails. Guardian rootstock
continues to be tested in 22 states and is performing well. A marker
for a gene for rootstock resistance to two root-knot nematode species
was sequenced and successfully used to correctly sort current
commercial rootstocks according to their known nematode resistance or
susceptibility. A major find is that the egg-kill factor produced by
the bacteria kills root-knot nematode eggs as well as ring nematode
eggs.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1981, $100,000; fiscal years 1982-1985, $192,000
per year; fiscal years 1986-1988, $183,000 per year; fiscal year 1989,
$192,000; fiscal year 1990, $190,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $192,00
per year; fiscal year 1994, $180,000; fiscal years 1995-2000, $162,000
per year. A total of $3,527,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources for this grant were as
follows: $149,281 state appropriations in 1991; $153,276 state
appropriations in 1992; $149,918 state appropriations in 1993; $211,090
state appropriations in 1994; $193,976 in state appropriations in 1995;
$169,806 in state appropriations in 1996 and 1997; $150,693 in state
appropriations in 1998; $92,099 in 1999; and $92,099 in state
appropriations in 2000.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This research is being conducted at South Carolina
Agricultural Experiment Station.
Question. What as the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The researchers anticipate that the work may be completed
in fiscal year 2001. Adequate progress has been made to assure that the
objectives will be met before the completion date.
Question. What was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The last agency evaluation of this project was a merit
review completed in January, 1999. In summary, the evaluation of peach
rootstocks with resistance to peach tree short life is of continued
importance in managing this disease. The use of biological control
strategies in suppression of plant parasitic nematodes are a
complementary area of research in that it can enhance disease
management by protecting the peach rootstocks. Solarization of orchard
sites prior to peach tree replanting significantly altered the
microbial community and suppressed nematode multiplication in the
rhizosphere. Some accomplishments were the increased production and
release of commercial Guardian seed and continued evaluation of
rootstock in 22 states and provinces. A molecular techniques that
separates resistant and susceptible peach rootstocks was validated.
PEANUT ALLERGY REDUCTION, ALABAMA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Peanut Allergy Reduction, grant.
Answer. The industry, in conjunction with Alabama A&M University,
Auburn University and the University of Georgia are trying to develop a
response to the problem of peanut allergy being experienced by greater
numbers of people and have determined that research is needed in the
following areas:
--the possibility of reducing the allergenic potential of peanuts
through bioengineering and traditional breeding targeted at
modifying the peanut proteins responsible for causing allergic
reactions;
-- development of vaccines and other means to desensitize people with
peanut allergies; and
-- development of better marketing, handling and processing methods
to reduce allergy risks.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. Peanut allergies present a major problem for the growth of
the peanut industry nationally, regionally and locally.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goals of this research are to (1) reduce the
allergenic potential of peanuts through bioengineering and traditional
breeding targeted at modifying the peanut proteins responsible for
causing allergic reactions; (2) develop vaccines and other means to
desensitize people with peanut allergies; and (3) develop better
marketing, handling and processing methods to reduce allergy risks.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins during this fiscal
year 2000. The appropriation for fiscal year 2000 is $425,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year 2000?
Answer. A grant proposal is expected from a consortium of
universities, among them are Alabama A&M University, Auburn University,
and the University of Georgia. Since grant proposals have not yet been
received, the source and amount of non-federal funds for this research
is not known.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research is expected to be carried out in Alabama.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
Answer. Since grant proposals from the cooperating universities of
the consortium have not yet been received, the anticipated completion
date and completion of objectives is not yet known.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Since grant proposals from the cooperating universities of
the consortium have not yet been received, the date of the last agency
evaluation is not yet known.
PEST CONTROL ALTERNATIVES, SOUTH CAROLINA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Pest Control Alternatives grant.
Answer. This grant supports research and technology transfer to
provide growers with alternatives for managing pests and to implement
the use of new alternatives reducing the sole reliance on chemical
pesticides.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The investigators contributing to the research and
technology transfer at South Carolina believe that need for the
development of alternatives for managing pests on vegetables is a
regional and national problem. Contributions from the South Carolina
work are projected by South Carolina to impact vegetable production in
the Southern region and consumers of vegetable production from the
Southern region.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. Studies conducted during 1999 demonstrated that Bacillus
thuringiensis formulations and combinations with botanicals such as
neem controlled a number of insect pests important on collards.
Comparisons were conducted with commonly used conventional pesticides.
Clearly, microbial products or microbial materials in combination with
botanicals such as neem, can control caterpillars on leafy greens
without the use of broad spectrum chemical insecticides. Fresh cowpea
pods were treated with different concentrations of neem to determine
the effects on the southern green stinkbug. Numbers of feeding
punctures were significantly reduced when pods were treated with neem.
Also, treatment caused deformed adults that could not feed or
reproduce. Because neem is ``soft'' on beneficial insects and spiders,
it may be considered as a part of an ecologically-compatible program of
insect control in several vegetable crops.
Field studies conducted during 1999 have shown that applications of
the entomopathogenic nematode, Steinernema fletiae, are as effective in
reducing damage from the squash vine borer as standard insecticide
sprays. Foliage sprays of a Bacillus thuringiensis formulation were
also effective in reducing damage by this pest.
Plant-feeding insects and predators were monitored by two different
methods in 5 species of medicinal plants during the spring and summer
of 1999. Except for one small, localized outbreak of whiteffies, the
natural enemies kept potential posts in check, Major predators included
ladybeetles, Nabis sp., Geocoris spp., and spiders in the genus
Pardosa. These preliminary results show that any insect management
program on medicinal herbs should avoid altogether the use of chemical
insecticides. Seedless watermelon were more resistant to powdery mildew
than seeded ones. Losses to powdery mildew should be less with seedless
than with seeded varieties. 19Munchkin' and 19Baby Boo' mini-pumpkins
were the most productive varieties among 11 mini-pumpkins tested.
Collards produced by crossing collard and cabbage germplasm had
increased vigor and favorable color, size and shape for the fresh
market. South Carolina county extension agents were provided technology
transfer information by Clemson University research scientists
participating in this research. Topics included, (1) conservation of
indigenous natural enemies, (2) augmentation of predators and
parasitoids, (3) age of microbial agents in cultivated systems and (4)
nematodes as biocontrol agents. County agents should be more informed
about the practical use of biological control agents as alternatives to
chemical insecticides.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1992
and the appropriation for fiscal years 1992 and 1993 was $125,000 per
year. In fiscal year 1994 the appropriation was $118,000 and in fiscal
years 1995 through 2000, $106,000. A total of $1,004,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. South Carolina has provided approximately $200,000 in
personnel support and operating dollars per year from State
appropriations based on the PI's estimate.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. This research and technology transfer program is being
conducted at the South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station,
Clemson University at Clemson, Florence, and Charleston, South
Carolina.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objectives of the project were for five years.
The project was revised in 1998. Research on objective A: to develop
and evaluate microbial pest control agents for control of plant
pathogens and insect pests of vegetables, is diffuse and non-
conclusive. It would be far superior for continued work in this area to
be submitted to competitive peer review programs where the
investigators would need to clearly focus specific activities and
receive the benefit of the comments of peer scientists. Objective B: to
determine the efficacy of innovative cultural practices for vegetable
production systems in South Carolina and Objective C: to assess the
role of indigenous predators, parasites, and pathogens in controlling
insect pests; determine environmental and biological factors that
influence the abundance and distribution of these indigenous
beneficials; and consider the presence of natural enemies, as well as
pests, in management decisions. These are areas where the most progress
appears evident and has been cited in the accomplishments. The base of
information and orientation of the research in these areas is adequate
and of such quality that the investigators could compete well in
competitive grant programs such as sustainable agriculture or regional
Integrated Pest Management grant programs, and would benefit from the
peer review process. Progress in these areas is an ongoing process as
explanations are sought for the results being obtained. Objective D: to
evaluate and develop germplasm, breeding lines and cultivars for
resistance to major pathogens of commercially important vegetables and
Objective E: to transfer new technology to user groups, have not at
this time, demonstrated progress which could be anticipated from
ongoing conventional sources of funds.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This project is evaluated annually when the grant is
processed. An agency evaluation of this project is to be scheduled for
the last part of fiscal year 2000.
PEST MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Pest Management Alternatives special grant.
Answer. This special research grant supports projects that help
farmers respond to the environmental and regulatory issues confronting
agriculture. These special grant funds support research that provides
farmers with replacement technologies for pesticides that are under
consideration for regulatory action by EPA and for which producers do
not have effective alternatives. The passage of the Food Quality
Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) makes this special research grant of
critical importance to the Nation's farmers.
New pest management tools are being developed to address critical
pest problems identified by farmers and others in a crop production
region, and to identify new approaches to managing pests without some
of the most widely used pesticides. Farmers have identified the lack of
effective alternative pest management tactics as a primary reason for
not implementing IPM on their farms. Where effective alternative
tactics have been developed, they are widely and rapidly implemented by
farmers. These special research grant funds are distributed on a
competitive basis to all eligible research institutions through the
Pest Management Alternatives Program or PMAP. Research priorities for
PMAP are established with the help of a database analysis system, which
draws upon the expertise of the land-grant university system, commodity
groups, and others.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research.
Answer. The ability of the Nation's agricultural production system
to keep pace with domestic and global demand for food and fiber is
dependant on access to safe, profitable and reliable pest management
systems. For a variety of factors, farmers and other pest managers have
fewer chemical control options available to them than they did at the
beginning of the decade, and this trend is likely to continue at an
accelerated rate. The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) will
have significant impacts on pest management systems in the United
States over the next decade, and the ``minor use'' (high value crops
grown on relatively few acres) will be particularly hard hit. For these
reasons and others, it is essential that farmers be provided with new
pest management tools and better information so they can remain
competitive in today's global marketplace.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. This research is conducted to help farmers respond to the
environmental and regulatory issues confronting agriculture by
providing them with new options for managing pests. The research
supported by this special grant is identifying new ways to manage pests
without key pesticides that may no longer be available as FQPA is
implemented. Some highlights of the research funded through PMAP
include technology that reduces organophosphates in apples, modified
cropping systems that replace herbicide use in pumpkins and squash,
surface amendments that reduce aerial pesticide pollutants, development
of pest and natural enemy thresholds to improve pest scouting on wheat,
models to improve pesticide use efficiencies in minor fruit crops,
improved insecticide and herbicide spray technology, new selective
insecticides to control broccoli insects, and use of non-traditional
oil sprays to control mites on apples.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much as been
appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal years 1996 through 2000, $1,623,000 each year. A total
of $8,115,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-federal funds are not required by this grants program.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. All State agricultural experiment stations, all colleges
and universities, other research institutions and organizations,
Federal agencies, private organizations or corporations, and
individuals are eligible to compete for this funding. This research is
currently being carried out by State Agricultural Experiment Stations
and other research organizations located in 20 States.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The economic and environmental pressures facing U.S.
agriculture today are greater today than in 1996 when federal funds
were first appropriated for this special research grant. There will be
a need for continued investment in research to develop new approaches
to managing pests for the foreseeable future as the Food Quality
Protection Act of 1996 is implemented.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Each new draft RFP and all project proposals are evaluated
annually by multi-disciplinary relevancy and merit review panels. A
joint USDA/EPA workshop to evaluate the progress and scope of the
program was held in Arlington, VA on May 11th, 1999. The conclusions
were that the program was on course and making good progress, and could
do more with additional funding. The projects supported by this special
research grant have consistently provided key knowledge needed in
developing new approaches to pest management. The focus on pesticides
targeted by FQPA assures that critical pest management alternatives are
being addressed. PMAP has supported 82 projects in 29 States since it
started five years ago.
PHYTOPHTHORA ROOT ROT, NEW MEXICO
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Phytophthora Root Rot grant.
Answer. Work has continued to focus in general on the development
of strategies for sustainable vegetable production in irrigated lands.
This research includes continued work on the search for Phytophthora
root rot resistance in chilies, identification of molecular markers for
rot tolerant genes, investigation on irrigation modification as a means
to manage root rot, and soil bed temperature control as a means to
manage disease.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that since Phytophthora
disease threatens chili production in west Texas, New Mexico, and
Eastern Arizona, this problem is of state and regional significance.
Question. What is the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal was to improve chile production through
genetically superior cultivars, combined with new improved cultural
practices. Researchers have developed a highly effective disease screen
that selects resistant seedlings, found that genes for resistance to
root rot do not provide protection against Phytophthora foliar blight,
that a wild species of Capsicum is immune to the fungus, and that
molecular markers are useful to introgress genes for tolerance.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991
with an appropriation of $125,000 for that year. The fiscal years 1992-
1993 appropriation was $150,000 per year; $141,000 in fiscal year 1994;
and $127,000 in fiscal years 1995-2000, each year. A total of
$1,328,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-federal funds from state appropriations and the
California Pepper Commission were $255,614, in 1997; $253,614 in 1998;
and state appropriations in 2000 are $250,000.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at New Mexico State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
was 1995. These objectives have not been met. Related programs deal
with research and development efforts designed to prevent or manage
diseases impacting vegetable production in irrigated areas, and
cooperators estimate that the objectives of these programs should be
met by 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The last merit review was made in January, 1999. In
summary, the development of resistant cultivars and research on
interactions of Capsicum and Phytophthora for developing strategies for
irrigated crop growers to be competitive in the international economic
arena continued. More than 40,000 seedlings were screened for
resistance to root rot and/or foliar blight in the greenhouse. Several
individual plants from cayenne, jalapeno, and new Mexican pod types
were found to possess both root-rot and foliar blight resistance.
Unfortunately due to an introduction of curly top virus the field
evaluation were lost this year. However, other research continues to
identify molecular makers linked to foliar blight.
PLANT, DROUGHT, AND DISEASE RESISTANCE GENE CATALOGING
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Plant, Drought, and Disease Resistance Gene
Cataloging grant.
Answer. This research grant identifies, characterizes, and catalogs
genes that enhance the ability of agricultural crops to resist stress
caused by drought and disease organisms. The project constructs, carts,
and distributes Cana libraries for genes that are differentially
expressed in response to drought or disease pressure. Work is also
being done to sequence DNA of these genes, to characterize their
patterns of expression, and to develop databases to share information
with other scientists.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. This research will improve the drought and disease
resistance of agricultural crops in New Mexico and throughout the
United States. This work has applications throughout the Nation,
especially in the arid and semi-arid production regions.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. This research project was supported so that better adapted
agricultural crops could be developed for difficult environments in New
Mexico and throughout the United States. New Mexico State University
established the facility, developed a database to catalogue Cana, and
began the initial work of sequencing and cataloging genes into
biologically informative groups. To date, scientists have isolated the
appropriate DNA to construct libraries of drought-stress induced
transcripts from three different chile genotypes, one grass, and one
clover. Additionally, they have selected the germplasm to characterize
for other species.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998
and has been with appropriations of the following amounts: fiscal years
1998 and 1999, $150,000 per year; fiscal year 2000, $212,500. A total
of $512,500 has been appropriated since fiscal year 1998.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, New Mexico Agricultural Experiment
Station provided $8,444 in non-federal funds. The funds covered a
portion of the salary for the two principal investigators.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research is primarily conducted at New Mexico State
University. Collaborations with Los Alamos National Lab and the
National Center for Genome Resources have been established.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. When it was initiated in fiscal year 1998, this project was
designed to demonstrate significant accomplishments within a five-year
time frame. The principal investigators report significant progress has
been made in achieving project objectives.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The last agency evaluation of this project was an agency
merit review which took place last March, 2000. This evaluation noted
that the faculty at New Mexico State University have been conducting
research on genes involved in disease and drought resistance on a wide
range of crops and have recently developed expertise and collaborative
efforts in bio-informatics. Work has begun on two new databases in the
areas of plant metabolism and cell biology. When the cDNA libraries are
constructed, curated and distributed, scientists from around the world
will have access to this database information. It was noted that this
project addresses high priority objectives in plant genetics which are
directed to economically important crops and approval of funding was
highly recommended.
POTATO RESEARCH
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the grant.
Answer. Scientists at several of the State Agricultural Experiment
Stations are breeding new potato varieties, high yielding, disease and
insect resistant potato cultivars, adapted to the growing conditions in
their particular areas, both for the fresh market and processing.
Research is being conducted in such areas as protoplast regeneration,
somoclonal variation, storage, propagation, germplasm preservation, and
cultural practices. Congressional language for fiscal years 1997, 1998,
1999, and 2000 has directed CSREES to award these funds on a
competitive basis. In each of the years, CSREES published a request for
proposals in the Federal Register and awarded grants competitively
based on a scientific peer review.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. This research effort addresses needs of the potato
producers and processors throughout the United States.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal was to improve potato production through
genetics and cultural practices as well as improve storage for quality
potatoes for processing and fresh market. This research has resulted in
a number of new high yielding, good quality, disease and insect
resistant cultivars, which are now being used in the processing
industry and in the fresh market. Regional comprehensive breeding
programs have been developed to produce cultivars targeted to the
specific growing conditions of that region. A number of the new
cultivars have also been adaptable to other regions. These programs
have also had success in identifying resistance to pests and pathogens
in wild germplasm and are developing expertise to incorporate genetic
engineering approaches as traditional components of the program.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1983, $200,000; fiscal year 1984, $400,000; fiscal
year 1985, $600,000; fiscal years 1986-1987, $761,000 per year; fiscal
year 1988, $997,000; fiscal year 1989, $1,177,000; fiscal year 1990,
$1,310,000; fiscal year 1991, $1,371,000; fiscal years 1992 and 1993,
$1,435,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $1,349,000; fiscal years 1995
through 1998, $1,214,000; and for fiscal years 1999 and 2000,
$1,300,000 per year. A total of $19,252,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $401,424 state appropriations, $4,897 product sales,
$249,830 industry, and $30,092 miscellaneous in 1991; $567,626 state
appropriations, $6,182 product sales, $334,478 industry, and $44,323
miscellaneous in 1992; $556,291 state appropriations, $9,341 product
sales, $409,541 industry, and $44,859 miscellaneous in 1993; $696,079
state appropriations, $21,467 product sales, $321,214 industry, and
$226,363 miscellaneous in 1994; $935,702 state appropriations, $35,376
product sales, $494,891 industry, and $230,080 miscellaneous in 1995;
and an estimated $900,000 state appropriations, $10,000 product sales,
$400,000 industry, and $200,000 miscellaneous in each of 1996, 1997,
1998, and 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research work is being carried out at the Cornell,
Idaho, Maine, Michigan, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington,
North Carolina, New Jersey, and Colorado State Agricultural Experiment
Stations. The grant to Colorado is divided by Colorado with the
California and Texas Agricultural Experiment Stations.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The project was initiated to accomplish significant results
in about five years. Because the research is based on genetic varietal
development, progress is developing new potato varieties takes from 5
to 10 years.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Beginning in fiscal year 1997, these funds have been
awarded on a competitive basis using a scientific peer review. In
addition, CSREES conducts a formal meeting with representatives from
the potato industry to review research needs and provide input to the
agency on the merits of the proposals.
PRECISION AGRICULTURE, KENTUCKY
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Precision Agriculture, Kentucky grant.
Answer. The Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension has
requested the university to submit a grant proposal that has not yet
been received. Research will evaluate site-specific practices for
production of corn and soy beans under field conditions. The work will
compare various combinations of management practices using site-
specific technology and evaluate economics of its application.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The need for this research is to provide objective
information about precision agriculture technologies to assist farmers
in the development of management systems that are productive,
economical, and environmentally benign.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research is to evaluate site
specified technologies and develop recommendations for their use in
crop management systems.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1999 was $500,000 and 2000 is
$850,000, total of $1,350,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. This is a new project which has not yet began and,
therefore, no non-federal funds have been used.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research will be conducted at the Kentucky Agriculture
Experiment Station.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for this project is 2003.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project will be evaluated upon receipt of the required
grant proposal.
PRE-HARVEST FOOD SAFETY, KANSAS
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been conducted under the Pre-Harvest Food Safety, Kansas grant.
Answer. Longitudinal studies on the fecal shedding of Escherichia
coli 0157:H7 (E. coli 0157:H7) by cattle on beef cow-calf ranches are
being done to determine the impact of various routine management
practices on the shedding rate. The purpose of the research is to
develop an understanding of the management factors that contribute to
the incidence of E. coli 0157:H7 in beef cattle. During the past year,
the project has been enlarged to included more monitoring of
environmental and wildlife samples to determine reservoirs for E. coli
0157:H7.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for the
research?
Answer. The presence of E. coli in beef animals sent to slaughter
can contribute to the contamination of meat products produced from such
animals. This has increased the need for control measures that could
reduce the incidence of such food-borne human pathogens in food animals
during the production cycle. With the implementation of mandatory
Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point programs for E. coli 0157:H7 in
slaughter plants, there is increased pressure for the livestock
producer to deliver animals to slaughter with reduced prevalence of E.
coli 0157:H7. This type of research has been identified as critical by
all food animal commodity groups as well as public health officials and
consumers.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal was to determine the incidence of E. coli
0157:H7 in large versus small beef cow-calf operations and describe the
management factors that contribute to or affect the rate of shedding of
organisms in the feces of such animals. E. coli 0157:H7 has been
detected in 3.11 percent of monthly fecal samples (n=3152), with 4.57
percent of the 2058 animals having at least one positive sample. Fecal
shedding was normally transient; only one animal was positive on more
than one sampling date. In addition, there was a difference in
prevalence between farms. Sources of drinking water were also examined
and 3.5 percent of 199 water samples were positive. Of particular
interest was that 8.3 percent of 24 creek/stream samples and 2.9
percent of 103 pond samples were positive. In addition, isolates of E.
coli 0157:H7 have been obtained from wildlife, especially deer.
Management practices on the ten farms are being examined to determine
if there are specific risk factors that can be identified.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1996.
The appropriations for fiscal years 1996 through 2000 was $212,000 per
year. A total of $1,060,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds by
fiscal year?
Answer. Non-Federal funds have been contributed to this project as
follows: In fiscal year 1996 non-federal funds were $150,000 in state
appropriations and $91,450 in contributed indirect costs; 1997 non-
federal funds were $165,000 in state appropriated funds and $90,300 in
contributed indirect costs; 1998 non-federal funds were $175,000 in
state funds and $91,500 in contributed indirect costs; 1999 non-federal
funds were $109,957 in state funds and $90,800 in contributed indirect
costs.
Question. Where is this work being performed?
Answer. This research is being conducted at Kansas State
University, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and at ranches in Kansas,
Nebraska, and Colorado.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date was October 1, 1998 for the
original objectives. However, the project was not initiated until
several months after the expected start date of October 1,1995 and the
original objectives were completed in late spring of 1999. As the
project has progressed, the Principal Investigator has added other
important questions to the original research plan and has planned to
look more closely at management interventions that could help reduce
the incidence of E. coli shedding in beef cattle. During the past year,
the project has added objectives which are focused on environmental
issues such as prevalence of E. coli 0157:H7 in wildlife as well as in
various water supplies used by the cattle. Thus the project is expected
to continue for some time after the original expected period of time.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project was evaluated by an on-site visit on October
28-29, 1997. The evaluation noted that the project team was doing an
excellent job and the interactive collaboration was outstanding. The
research team has been successful in bringing other participants into
the program. The project leader provided a very comprehensive written
report on November 3, 1998, including manuscripts currently under
review for publication, which has permitted a further assessment of the
continued progress on this important project. Several scientific papers
have been given at scientific meetings and manuscripts are being
published as rapidly as data are assembled, analyzed, and prepared for
publication.
PRESERVATION AND PROCESSING RESEARCH, OKLAHOMA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Preservation and Processing Research grant.
Answer. Research has focused on the effects of preharvest and
postharvest factors on the market quality of fresh and minimally
processed horticultural products, including marigolds, pecans,
watermelons, peaches, and sage. Researchers are developing harvester
prototypes for marigold flowers and drying and threshing systems for
marigold petal drying and separation. A fruit orienting mechanism is
being developed for incorporation into an on-line grading system. An
integrated harvesting and postharvest handling system is being
developed for fresh market and processing market horticultural
products. Research continues on methods to determine textural
properties of pecans, determine optimum operating parameters for
supercritical carbon dioxide and other alternative extraction
technologies, and develop and optimize modified atmosphere packaging
techniques and partial oil extraction for pecan shelf life extension.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that technological
improvements in fruit, nut and vegetable handling systems are needed to
supply domestic markets and support continued participation in
international commerce, which is a national need. New environmentally
friendly processing systems have been developed and are being
commercialized in Oklahoma, with broad application to numerous crops
with international marketing potential. Processing systems under
development for commercial adaptation will support market expansion of
pecans and sage, affecting product market potential and value
regionally. Improvements in postharvest handling and processing are
necessary to support growth of the state and national horticulture and
related agricultural industries and ensure competitive involvement in
national and international commerce of commodities uniquely suited for
production in Oklahoma. New extraction facilities will continue to have
a positive impact on local economies, incorporating a new value added
processing industry, providing local employment opportunities and
providing a new local market for Oklahoma produced commodities.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the research has been to define the major
limitations for maintaining quality of harvested fruits, vegetables and
tree nuts and prescribe appropriate harvesting, handling and processing
protocols to extend shelf life and marketability of harvested
horticultural commodities, thus maintaining profitability of production
systems and assuring an economic market niche for Oklahoma producers
and food processors. A systems approach to develop complementary
cropping, harvesting, handling and processing operations has resulted
in development of improved handling systems for cucurbit, tree fruit
and herb crops. Nondestructive processing systems for partial oil
reduction of tree nuts have been developed to extend shelf life and
lower the calorie content for the raw or processed product. A new food
extraction facility has started operations in Oklahoma.
Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1985, $100,000; fiscal year 1986, $142,000; fiscal
year 1987, $242,000; fiscal years 1988 and 1989, $267,000 per year;
fiscal year 1990, $264,000; fiscal year 1991, $265,000; fiscal year
1992, $282,000; fiscal year 1993, $267,000; fiscal year 1994, $251,000;
and fiscal years 1995-2000 $226,000 each year. A total of $3,703,000
has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year 2000?
Answer. State funds have been provided as follows: fiscal year
1991, $126,900; fiscal year 1992, $209,783; fiscal year 1993, $219,243;
fiscal year 1994, $308,421; fiscal year 1995, $229,489; year 1996,
$366,570; fiscal year 1997, $397,881; fiscal year 1998, $205,662; and
fiscal year 1999, $206,334. The State also invested $16,100,000 for
development of an Agricultural Products and Food Processing Center and
approximately $2 million dollars annually to staff and operate the
facility.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. This work is being conducted at the Oklahoma State
Agricultural Experiment Station, in conjunction with ongoing production
research at the Wes Watkins Agricultural Research and Extension Center
and the South Central Agricultural Research Laboratories.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
Answer. It is expected that ongoing research will be completed in
2002. Additional related objectives beyond this date would address
further opportunities for horticulture industry growth, innovative food
processing technologies and associated economic development.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. A review of the proposal supporting the fiscal year 1999
appropriation was conducted on March 31, 1999. The project was
evaluated as part of a comprehensive site review in the fall of 1995,
with a recommendation by the review team to continue and expand the
value-added product development.
RANGELAND ECOSYSTEMS, NM
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Rangeland Ecosystems, NM grant?
Answer. Current research is focused on the ecology of noxious and
invasive weeds that are endemic to New Mexico's rangelands. Competitive
research grants have been awarded that deal with studying the
physiological and toxicological effects of these weeds on livestock.
Question. According the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national regional, or local focus for this
research?
Answer. Noxious weeds are a serious problem in the southwestern
United States About one-fifth of the rangeland in Texas and more than
one-half in the New Mexico is infested to some degree. Under this
program, researchers are working to develop an integrated weed
management approach in rangeland ecosystems for that region.
Question. What has the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished?
Answer. Accomplished research led to understanding of broom
snakeweed and other noxious weeds including a better understanding of
plant's strategy for invasion and persistence. The primary focus of
research at this time is addressing the need for an integrated weed
management approach for noxious weeds, especially broom snakeweed.
Research is addressing three general areas which are ecology and
management, biological control and toxicology and animal health. One
specific accomplishment is the biological control arena; several plant
pathogens and insects are proving to be effective in broom snakeweed's
control.
Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1989, $100,000; fiscal year 1990, $148,000; fiscal
year 1991, $150,000; fiscal years 1992 and 1993, $200,000 per year;
fiscal year 1994, $188,000; fiscal years 1995 and 1996, $169,000 each
year; fiscal year 1997, $175,000; fiscal year 1998, $185,000; and for
fiscal years 1999 and 2000, $200,000 per year. A total of $2,084,000
has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $249,251 state appropriations in 1991; $200,110 state
appropriations in 1992; $334,779 state appropriations in 1993; $302,793
state appropriations in 1994; $294,451 state appropriations in 1995;
and an estimated $300,000 in state appropriations in each fiscal year
of 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at New Mexico State University
and throughout the State of new Mexico in actual field conditions.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The project was initiated in 1991. Considerable progress
has been made on many of the original objectives. Currently, additional
and related objectives have evolved and anticipated completion date for
these is 2004.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Each year the grant is peer reviewed with oversight by an
administrative executive committee within the College of Agriculture
and Home Economics at New Mexico State University. Additionally,
CSREES' senior scientific staff review the progress of the grant. Those
reviews indicated progress in achieving the objectives.
RED SNAPPER RESEARCH/ALABAMA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that will be
funded under the Red Snapper Research grant, Alabama.
Answer. The agency is in the process of requesting the university
to submit a grant proposal for this new research activity.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
research, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The researchers indicate that there is a regional need for
red snapper research because of its importance to the Gulf states and
the fact that it is presently considered to be an over-fished species
by commercial and recreational interests. Current harvest limitations
mandated by Federal actions have resulted in economic losses to coastal
communities. Research will provide critical knowledge in efforts to
restore native populations and stimulate the development of aquaculture
enterprises in the Gulf region.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. This is a new research grant to be funded in fiscal year
2000.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2000
and the appropriation for fiscal year 2000 is $510,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The university estimates that significant non-federal
funding will be provided in fiscal year 2000 primarily from state
sources to cover salaries of the principal investigators. As the
program develops, additional non-federal funding is expected.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research will be conducted through the Alabama
Agricultural Experiment Station at the Claude Peteet Mariculture Center
located in Gulf Shores in collaboration with the Alabama Marine
Resources Division.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
is fiscal year 2001. The project will be initiated in fiscal year 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency will evaluate the progress of this new project
on an annual basis. The university will be required to submit an
accomplishment report each year when the new proposal is submitted to
the agency for funding. Since this is the first year of the program,
the agency will conduct an external peer review of the proposal. The
fiscal year 2000 review will be completed within three weeks of
submission of the proposal. The researchers will be requested to
develop a research proposal consistent with the National Science and
Technology Council's Strategic Plan for Aquaculture Research and
Development.
REGIONAL BARLEY GENE MAPPING PROJECT
Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Regional Barley Gene Mapping Project grant.
Answer. The Regional Barley Genome Mapping Project is a multi-
disciplinary, multi-institutional project to develop a genome map of
barley. Specific objectives are to: construct a publicly-available
medium resolution barley genome map; use the map to identify and locate
loci, especially quantitative trait loci controlling economically-
important traits such as yield, maturity, adaptation, resistance to
biotic and abiotic stresses, malting quality, and feed value; provide
the framework for efficient molecular marker-assisted selection
strategies in barley varietal development; identify chromosome regions
for further, higher resolution mapping with the objective of
characterizing and utilizing genes of interest; and establish a
cooperative mapping project ranging from molecular genetics to breeding
that will be an organizational model for cereals and other crop plants.
All funds are awarded on a competitive basis.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes barley breeders
nationwide need information about the location of agriculturally-
important genes controlling resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses,
yield, and quality factors in order to rapidly develop new, improved
cultivars and respond to disease and pest threats. This project
provides that information along with appropriate molecular markers to
track these traits through the breeding and selection process.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this project has been to develop a
restriction fragment length polymorphism map for barley and associated
important genetic traits to provide closely linked molecular markers
for barley breeders. The project has developed comprehensive linkage
maps defining the entire barley genome in three experimental
populations and determined the location, number, effect, and
interaction of genes determining a range of economically-important
traits. Additionally, the project has supported the development and use
of an array of genomics tools that are publicly available. Technical
papers have been published to report research results to the scientific
community.
Question. How long has this work been under way and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1990, $153,000; fiscal year 1991, $262,000; fiscal
years 1992-1993, $412,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $387,000; fiscal
years 1995-1998, $348,000 each year; fiscal year 1999, $400,000; and
fiscal year 2000, $425,000. A total of $3,843,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $203,760 from industry in 1991; $212,750 from industry
in 1992; $115,000 from industry in 1993; and $89,000 from industry in
1994; and $35,000 from the State of Washington and $108,000 in other
non-federal funding, for a total of $143,000 in 1995. Non-federal funds
were $163,000 for 1996 and $178,240 in 1997. In 1998, the project
received $35,000 from industry. Non federal for 1999 were estimated at
$156,000.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted in the following state
agricultural experiment stations; Oregon, Colorado, Washington,
Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, Minnesota, New York, Virginia and
California.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objective was to produce a genetic map of
agronomically-important traits of the barley genome. The anticipated
time to complete this task was estimated at ten years with completion
in 1999. The initial goals have been exceeded; however, maps are never
``done''. The next step will be physical mapping of gene rich regions
in order to study the genes and understand pathways. Researchers will
focus on quality and disease resistence. This phase is projected for
completion in 2004.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. In 1998, the special grant proposal was subjected to the
project approval process at Oregon State University, which is the lead
university, and reviewed by an agency scientist. This project is made
up of many competitively-awarded mini grants. A subgroup of the
National Barley Improvement Committee, which is composed of elected
representatives of research, growers, and industry, serves as the peer
panel to review and select proposals based on relevance to the original
objectives and scientific merit. Multi-disciplinary, multi-
institutional, and continuing projects are given the highest priority.
The overall project and its mini-grants have been judged to be
scientifically sound and appropriate for the stated objectives, based
on comments and rating from peer scientists which is done on each
support prior to selection.
REGIONALIZED IMPLICATIONS OF FARM PROGRAMS
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the program on Regionalized Implications of Farm
Programs grant.
Answer. The University of Missouri continuously provides
regionalized analysis of alternative farm program designs. This
includes providing farm level analysis of national changes in
agriculture policy.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The need for this research is to give farm-level or micro
view of macro-level changes; and to provide as accurate and robust an
analysis as possible in order to point out regional differences in
policy alternatives.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original, as well as current, goal was and continues to
be to provide the farm community, agribusiness groups, and public
officials information about farm, trade, and fiscal policy implications
by developing regionalized models that reflect farming characteristics
for major production regions of the United States. The researchers have
developed a farm level policy analysis system encompassing major U.S.
farm production regions. This system interfaces with existing
agricultural sector models used for farm, macroeconomic, and trade
policy analysis. The universities have expanded the number and types of
representative farms to 80. Typical farm models also are being
developed for Mexico and Canada under a collaborative agreement for use
in analyzing impacts of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Policy studies completed this past year at the request of
policymakers and farm groups included analysis of the impacts of
marketing loan provisions on farmers' economic viability; drought on
farm income and farm viability; early provision of Agricultural
Marketing Transaction Act (AMTA) payments, risk management accounts;
and other crop insurance and disaster assistance alternatives.
Results of these analysis were presented to more than 60 different
groups across the U.S., including, of course, both congressional
agriculture committees. The Agricultural Food Policy Center (AFPC) web
site, which contains copies of all Working and Briefing Papers, was
visited more than 345,000 times during May-November, 1998.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1990
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1990 was $346,000. The fiscal
years 1991-1993 appropriations were $348,000 per year; $327,000 in
fiscal year 1994; and $294,000 in each of the fiscal years 1995 through
1999. The fiscal year 2000 is $294,000. A total of $3,481,00 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $288,843 State appropriations and $46,773 industry for
a total of $335,616 in 1991; $45,661 State appropriations in 1992;
$33,979 State appropriations in 1993; $40,967 State appropriations in
1994; $161,876 State appropriations in 1995; $187,717 State
appropriations for 1996; and $137,100 for 1997; and $161,400 for 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted by the Texas A&M University and
University of Missouri at Columbia.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This program is of a continuing nature for the purpose of
assessing the impacts of existing policies and issues and proposed
policy and program changes at the individual firm level for feed grain,
wheat, cotton, rice, oilseed and livestock producers. In addition, the
representative farms are constantly being updated as farming practices
change. Currently the researchers are making adjustments for the
increasing use of Bt and Round-Up Ready seeds.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. No formal evaluation of this project has been carried out;
however, the CSREES representative is in frequent communication with
the principal investigator concerning policy analysis procedures and
studies.
RICE MODELING, AR
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Rice Modeling grant.
Answer. The purpose of this research project is to develop a
regional, national and global rice industry model for use in analyzing
the impact of changes in domestic and foreign public policies on
production, trade, stocks, substitute crops, farm prices and domestic
as well as global consumption.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. Research is needed to assist both the U.S. rice industry
and national policymakers in assessing the impact of existing and
proposed changes in public policies for rice. This research enables
improved analysis of both international and domestic policy changes on
rice production, stocks, prices of substitute crops and consumption. It
has been, and is being used to analyze the impacts of farm policy
proposals on the U.S. rice industry, to analyze the impact of WTO and
the Uruguay Round agreements on U.S. trade, to analyze the impact of
emerging rice importing and exporting countries on U.S. rice exports,
and to analyze the market for different rice types (qualities) and
seasonal demand and supply factors that affect the global rice market.
The principal researcher believes this research addresses national,
regional and local needs.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to develop
international, national and regional models to analyze the impact of
foreign and domestic policy changes, and forecast changes in
production, trade, stocks, prices of substitute crops, farm prices, and
consumption.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work actually began about four years ago and federal
research grants from various sources have totaled roughly $2 million
prior to this year. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal
year 1996. The appropriation for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 was
$395,000; for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000, $296,000, for a total
appropriation of $1,678,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds over the 4 years prior to this year
totaled approximately $500,000. For the 1996 fiscal year, state
appropriations were $178,000; and for 1977 and 1998, $150,000.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being carried out at the University of
Arkansas-Fayetteville and the University of Missouri-Columbia.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The domestic portion of the rice model has been completed.
The international modeling research is a little over half completed and
the researchers estimate another 5 years is required. The purpose of
constructing the models, however, is to provide on-going analysis of
the impact of various policy proposals on the U.S. rice industry.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. We have conducted no formal evaluation of this project.
However, annual proposals are peer reviewed for relevance and
scientific merit. Also, each annual budget proposal is carefully
reviewed for adherence to stated objectives and annual progress is
discussed with the principal investigators.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT CENTERS
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Rural Development Centers Program grant.
Answer. The overall objectives of the research agenda of the five
rural development centers are to: Improve economic competitiveness and
diversification in rural areas; support management and strategic
planning for economic development; create community capacity through
leadership; assist in family and community adjustments to stress and
change; and promote constructive use of the environment. The function
of the Centers is to increase the productivity of regional faculty both
in doing research on rural issues and in using that research to do
effective outreach with rural communities. These projects have
undergone a merit review.
Question. According to the research proposal, or one of the
principal investigators, what is the national, regional or local need
for this research?
Answer. In the context of a global society, rural communities and
rural economies are increasingly complex and multi-dimensional. People
living in rural America face an ever increasing number of public issues
and problems needing resolution. Yet the number of research faculty
addressing broader rural issues is declining in many places. The multi-
disciplinary, multi-state work supported by the Centers is even more
crucial in this context. The four Centers initiate, facilitate, and
evaluate research that has direct, positive impacts on the social and
economic well-being of individuals, families, communities, small towns
and rural places. Center-supported research addresses such rural
development issues as rural economic diversification, workforce
preparation, the changing demography of rural places, transitions in
agriculture, small business and retail trade opportunities, the impacts
of welfare reform, the capacity of state and local governments to meet
changing public assistance needs, management of natural and
environmental resources, public lands policy, water quality, physical
infrastructure, food assistance issues among vulnerable populations,
education and strengthened human capital, forest stewardship, and
access to vital community services. Specific research priorities emerge
from on-going dialog with stakeholders and clients in each region and
are reviewed annually by the Centers and their Boards of Directors. In
addition, in 1999 the Center Directors began a collaborative process to
identify critical rural development issues shared across regions and to
establish a collaborative national rural research agenda. Together the
Centers enhance the capacity of people and communities to carry out
expanding responsibilities in the design, management, and financing of
government programs and in building healthy, viable communities and
families across rural America.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The Rural Development Center mission is to strengthen rural
families, communities, and businesses by facilitating collaborative
research and extension education through land-grant institutions and
their partners in the various regions. Research programs are undertaken
after evaluating broader regional and national priorities. Following
are some accomplishments of selected research activities conducted
under the auspices of various centers.
The Southern Regional Development Center (SRDC) is nationally
recognized for its Information Briefs, prepared to shed light on the
host of challenges and opportunities facing governments, communities
and people in the South. In a special 1998-71999 series, for example,
SRDC sponsored research by land-grant faculty on the South's experience
of major welfare reform in the United States. The ``Welfare Reform
Briefs'' now help national, state, and local leaders and officials
understand and respond to the devolution of government services, rural
transportation issues and welfare reform, family economics and
individual development accounts, the cost of living, rural earnings
capacity, job opportunities for low-income people, and child care
issues. Most recently, SRDC launched its ``Millennium Series,''
research on persistent problems in the rural South as well as
optimistic trends. Research underway addresses wage levels, strategies
to strengthen the economic health of agricultural and non-agricultural
firms, rural racial and ethnic diversity, rapid urbanization and its
effects on natural and environmental resources, the demand for better
educated workers, progress advancing labor force skill levels,
entrepreneurial opportunities and strategies to diversify the rural
economy, the changing structure of families and related family services
needs, and barriers to health care quality and access. The planned
series of 35 policy briefs will stimulate public dialogue needed to
create vibrant, healthy rural communities in the rural South.
Like the other Centers, the SRDC links the research sponsors with
extension education in several ways. For example, with land-grant
faculty in the southeast, the SRDC developed and sponsors the Southern
Regional Community Development Institute. Diverse extension educators
(agriculture, natural resources, family and youth development,
community development, and middle management) spend five days attending
sessions on understanding community, strategic planning, asset-mapping,
social infrastructure, local government, problem-solving, economic and
sustainable development, and leadership skills. Started in 1998, demand
for the training is strong, and SRDC has scheduled its third Institute
for summer 2000. Another initiate begun in 1999, the Mid-South Delta
Institute, is an on-going participatory research and training program
designed to help community leaders of northwest Mississippi expand
their understanding of themselves and their communities through asset-
mapping, strategic planning, building partnerships, and consensus-
building.
The North Central Regional Center for Rural Development (NCRCRD)
has an extensive repertoire of research informing policy and community
development programs. Its contributions have won national recognition
in the areas of workforce preparation, state of the art community
visioning and strategic planning, social indicators for community and
economic planning, and federal program assessment including the
Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community initiative and national workforce
preparation programs. NCRCRD supported research also enhances the
scientific methods land-grant faculty use in applied research on rural
development. For example, land-grant faculty supported by NCRCRD
demonstrates the power and utility of clustering geographic and
demographic data and linking geodemographic clusters to Agriculture
Census and Decennial data. Other research analyzes the future of small
rural trade centers as providers of public services, th dynamics of
rural retail trade, and the most critical needs of rural business
communities. Through its workshops, conferences, training programs, and
newsletter, Rural Development News, NCRCRD provides research results
and related educational materials to rural development professionals in
land-grant and partner institutions and organizations across the
country.
Industrial recruitment has been one of the most popular methods of
economic development in the U.S. But increasingly, the cost
effectiveness of this strategy is being questioned by researchers and
practitioners. With the help of research and related training programs,
communities are capitalizing on an alternative strategy called Business
Retention and Expansion (BR&E). This builds on local economic
development efforts by creating teams of local leaders to help
communities improve their business climate and identify and address
impediments to growth and retention of existing businesses. The
Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development (NERCRD) supported the
development of BR&E materials that are now used in training workshops
across the country, sponsored by Business Retention and Expansion
International. Economic development professionals across the U.S. and
in Canada have purchased these materials and use them locally to retain
and expand existing businesses and reduce the high costs associated
with industrial recruitment strategies. Shared internationally, the
materials also have been translated into French and Polish.
NERCRD also funded research to assess the consumer credit knowledge
of rural poor and ethnic minorities and determine their use of credit
and management practices. Based on the research, an educational program
that focuses on the wise use of consumer credit has been developed and
offered to a diverse extension audience. This program also contributed
to a video that promotes the MONEY 2000 program, encouraging
participants to save and/or reduce debt by $2,000 by the end of the
year 2000. The video is distributed widely by extension personnel
within the region and nation and is used by financial counselors at
several military bases. It helps families living paycheck-to-paycheck
and struggling with low savings or high household debt. Since it was
launched in 1996, MONEY 2000 has helped over 7,000 people in more than
30 states increase their net worth by more than $3 million.
New programs underway at the Western Rural Development Center
(WRDC) include research to enhance home-based and micro business
opportunities and a ``rapid growth toolkit'' to help communities
address land and natural resource use issues in the midst of economic
growth. This builds on the Center's long-standing support for research
on the impacts of tourism and its economic impact and promise in the
west. In addition, WRDC has been active in BR&E related research. Using
a WRDC supported BR&E expansion program, New Mexico State University
Extension has helped communities expand their economic base by saving
and creating local jobs, and BC Hydro in Burnaby, British Columbia
recently requested and received permission to adapt the Business R&E
program materials for use in rural Canada.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1971, $75,000; fiscal year 1972, $225,000; fiscal
year 1973, $317,000; fiscal years 1974-1981, $300,000 per year; fiscal
years 1982-1985, $311,000 per year; fiscal years 1986-1987, $363,000
per year; fiscal year 1988, $475,000; fiscal year 1989, $500,000;
fiscal year 1990, $494,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $500,000 per year;
fiscal year 1994, $470,000; fiscal years 1995-1998, $423,000 per year;
fiscal year 1999, $523,000; and fiscal year 2000, $523,000. A total of
$11,164,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-federal funds available to the four Regional Centers
for Rural Development were: fiscal year 1991, $1,117,000; fiscal year
1992, $790,000; fiscal year 1993, $900,000; fiscal year 1994, $776,591;
and fiscal year 1995, $710,0050; for a total of $4,293,641 across the
five years for which there are complete data. Non-federal partners
sponsoring research and related extension programs through the Centers
since 1995 include the Farm Foundation, the University of Kentucky's
Tennessee Valley Authority Rural Studies Program, the W. K Kellogg
Foundation, the Upjohn Institute, the Kerr Center for Sustainable
Agriculture, the National 4-H Council, and the Heartland Center. Other
federal partners include the EPA, Small Business Administration, and in
USDA--Rural Development, Economic Research Service; Agricultural
Research Service; Forest Service; SARE; and National Resource and
Conservation Service. In short, in recent years the Centers have
established an impressive record of brokering partnerships with private
foundations and non-governmental organizations, as well as other
federal partners, to meet their goals and extend the impact of their
allocated federal dollars.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The regional rural development centers include the
following: Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development;
Pennsylvania State University; North Central Regional Center for Rural
Development at Iowa State University; Southern Rural Development Center
at Mississippi State University; and Western Rural Development Center
at Oregon State University. There is also a rural development project
at North Dakota State University which receives funding from the annual
Rural Development Centers appropriation. Most of the research sponsored
by the four regional centers is actually performed by resident faculty
at land-grant universities in the respective region through
subcontracts from that center's grant.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives.
Answer. The regional rural development centers were established to
provide an on-going ``value added'' component to link research and
extension and by doing so to increase rural development under the
special conditions in each region. The work of the Centers is being
carried out in all 50 states and in some territories. The Centers
compile a report of annual accomplishments and share those with the
states in the region. Accomplishments are now shared through
sophisticated, interactive web sites. The list of needs is constantly
evolving and is being addressed through projects that are matched to
the constantly shifting local agenda. The current phase of the program
will be completed in fiscal year 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The Centers enlist the help of academic and private/public
foundations personnel on advisory committees and boards of directors to
help establish operating rules and provide professional, technical
counsel and peer evaluation of Center projects and the investigators.
The projects are evaluated annually by the advisory committees and the
boards of directors against the five key issue areas and the objectives
of each project for relevance, achievement, and initial impacts.
Follow-up evaluation is carried out by the Center staffs in order to
assess long-term impacts of these projects on local communities.
RURAL POLICIES INSTITUTE
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Rural Policies Institute grant.
Answer. The Rural Policy Research Institute is a consortium of
three universities designed to create a comprehensive approach to rural
policy analysis. The Institute conducts research and facilitates public
dialogue to increase public understanding of the rural impacts of
national, regional, state, and local policies on rural areas of the
United States.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. There is a need to estimate the impacts of changing state
and national programs and policies on rural people and places.
Objective public policy analysis can provide timely and accurate
estimates of the impacts of proposed policy changes to allow more
reasoned policy discussions and decisions. The principal researcher
believes this research meets national, regional and local needs.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the Rural Policy Research Institute
(RUPRI) was to create a new model to provide timely, accurate, and
unbiased estimates of the impacts of policies and new policy
initiatives on rural people and places. During the past four years,
RUPRI has analyzed the impact of market-driven health reform and
impacts of specific health policy alternatives on rural people; the
impact of implementing the Telecommunications Act of 1996, including
use of the Universal Service Funds; the impact of welfare reform on
rural communities. RUPRI has developed complex models to provide
quantitative estimates of economic, demographic, and fiscal effects of
policy alternatives on local communities of different types and in
different regions. During those same four years, RUPRI has provided 30
analyses for congressional hearings and briefings on critical issues
affecting rural America, 100 policy research papers, and developed a
popular website. RUPRI's work is published and cited in numerous
academic journals, discussed in the media, and widely used by policy
decision makers at all levels of government.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by these grants began in fiscal year
1991 and the appropriation for fiscal year 1991 was $375,000. The
fiscal year 1992 appropriation was $525,000; for fiscal year 1993,
$692,000; for fiscal year 1994, $494,000; and fiscal years 1995-2000,
$644,000 each year. A total of $5,950,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Aggregated non-federal funds to support the Rural Policy
Research Institute across the three universities involved include
unrecovered indirect costs, salary support from university and other
non-federal sources, and various other grants, contracts, and
reimbursable agreements. They amounted to $316,458 for fiscal year
1991; $417,456 in fiscal year 1992; $605,302 in fiscal year 1993;
$537,834 in fiscal year 1994; $584,516 in fiscal year 1995, for fiscal
year 1996, $576,782; $186,859 in 1997; $153,614 for 1998; and an
estimated $168,450 for 1999. Total to date including the 1999 estimate,
is $3,547,271.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The Institute's member universities are: the University of
Missouri-Columbia; the University of Nebraska-Lincoln; and Iowa State
University, Ames.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1991 was for a period of 24
months, however, rural communities continue to be impacted by major
socio-economic changes as well as state and federal policy changes. The
current phase of the program will be completed in 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in February
1999, as it evaluated the 1999 project proposal, and determined that:
``RUPRI is an effective interdisciplinary, multistate effort that
supports the mandates for collaboration in the Agricultural Research,
Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998. Its work supports CSREES
strategic goals of enhancing economic opportunity and quality of life.
The principal investigator and participants are well qualified to
conduct the project.''
RUSSIAN WHEAT APHID, COLORADO
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Russian Wheat Aphid grant.
Answer. Funding will support two key areas of research that are
needed to assure long-term and sustainable Russian wheat aphid
management. These are:
--Discovering new crop genes which provide resistance to the Russian
wheat aphid and incorporating them into commercially acceptable
wheat varieties, and
--Integrating the available control tactics into the most effective,
efficient, and environmentally sound production systems for the
Great Plains.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The Russian wheat aphid is an exotic pest that entered the
western United States without its normal complement of biological
control agents. This insect has rapidly become the most important
insect pest of wheat in the western United States. From 1986-1991, the
total economic impact was estimated to be in excess of $657 million. In
the same period, some 17.5 million pounds of insecticides were used
nationally for Russian wheat aphid control. The cost to American
farmers of insecticide treatments was over $70 million. In addition,
the intense use of insecticides on a crop that previously received
little insecticide treatment raised concerns about the impact on water
quality, human health, food safety, non-target organisms, and general
environmental quality. Direct losses in Colorado have been as high as
$27 million in a single year with an average direct loss of above $11
million per year, since 1987.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goals of the research are to:
--Discover new crop genes which provide resistance to the Russian
wheat aphid and incorporate them into commercially acceptable
wheat varieties, and
--Integrate the available control tactics into the most effective,
efficient, and environmentally sound production systems for the
Great Plains. The techniques of molecular genetics are being
employed to reach the goal of identifying new genes for
resistance to Russian wheat aphid and incorporating them into
commercially acceptable wheat varieties. Several DNA marker
technologies used in other plant species have been successfully
adapted for mapping Russian wheat aphid resistance genes in
wheat. These include restriction fragment length polymorphism
and amplified fragment length polymorphism techniques as well
as microsatellite markers. Restriction fragment length
polymorphism markers were initially used to map two Russian
wheat aphid resistance genes--Dn4, the one used in 19Halt' and
Dn2, an additional resistance gene that might be suitable for
inclusion in a cultivar containing two resistance genes.
A new Russian wheat aphid resistance gene (Dn7), identified by
other researchers in South Africa, 94M370, has been crossed with
susceptible wheat to generate materials for use in molecular genetic
analysis of Dn7 and to incorporate the gene into wheat. Dn7 is one of
the resistance genes that is being targeted for molecular cloning in
the Colorado State program.
Two kinds of DNA libraries were developed from 94M370 as additional
sources of clones for RFLP mapping: a Pst-I genomic library and a cDNA
library. These libraries are very useful because they allow screening
for clones in such a way that the DNA from rye can be distinguished
from wheat DNA.
In another set of experiments, a cDNA library was made from mRNA
extracted from leaf tissues of 94M370. One thousand randomly picked
clones from this library are being sequenced. The sequenced clones from
the 94M370 library also will be used in the mapping effort.
In addition, the mapping effort of this project will be
strengthened by access to cDNA libraries that will be produced under a
National Science Foundation grant awarded to a team of U.S. wheat
researchers for the purpose of developing tools for wheat genomics.
Once a genetic map is developed, the next step in positional
cloning is to determine the physical location of the markers on the
chromosomes and the physical distance between the markers. This step is
being accomplished by the use of fluorescence in situ hybridization
(FISH) techniques.
In order to routinely detect DNA markers on chromosomes by
fluorescence in situ hybridization, clones containing large DNA inserts
are required. Bacterial artificial chromosomes will be used to meet
this requirement. Two Bacterial artificial chromosome libraries are
available from other research teams as sources of probes for the FISH
experiments. These were screened with five markers linked to either Dn2
or Dn4 and positive Bacterial artificial chromosomes were identified
for all five markers. Fluorescence in situ hybridization using these
Bacterial artificial chromosome clones to wheat metaphase chromosomes
are underway.
A critical factor in the success of fluorescence in situ
hybridization is the routine availability of complete chromosome
spreads that are flat and free of cytoplasmic material. Procedures have
been developed for preparing wheat chromosome spreads that are flat and
intact.
Another critical factor in the fluorescence in situ hybridization
experiments is the ability to distinguish the target chromosome from
the rest of the wheat chromosomes. Target chromosomes include 1RS/1BL,
which contains Dn7; 1D, which contains Dn4; and 7D, which contains Dn2.
Several techniques are being used to distinguish the desired
chromosomes.
Progress has been made in Integrating Tactics for Management of the
Russian wheat aphid. In 1998, experimental dryland cropping systems
were established in eastern Colorado. To be as realistic as possible,
two of these are located in growers fields and have been designed with
grower input and are managed jointly with the grower-cooperator. Long-
term studies were initiated to compare the experimental systems with
typical wheat production systems in the area. The experimental systems
were designed to optimize the effects of environmentally sound pest
management tactics (particularly resistant cultivars, the effects of
cultural practices, such as planting date, harvesting date, grazing, et
cetera., and biological control, such as reducing Russian wheat aphid
numbers through the actions of predators and parasites. In addition,
the experimental systems were designed to optimize water use efficiency
and other agronomic and profitability factors.
At each location, wheat and other adapted dryland crops are grown
in proximity to each other so that interactions among various crops and
various production practices can be studied. Rotations over time of
wheat with other crops also are being investigated. These large-scale
experimental systems will be ideal arenas in which to determine the
best way to apply the knowledge already gained about specific aspects
of Russian wheat aphid biology and ecology, production practices, and
the effectiveness of naturally occurring Russian wheat aphid parasites
and predators. These large-scale experimental cropping systems also
will provide valuable information on Russian wheat aphid management to
wheat growers who are considering adding additional crops to their
dryland cropping systems.
In 1999 data were collected on a wide variety of agronomic and pest
variables. Initial observations on Russian wheat aphid indicated
enhanced biological control in the more diverse, experimental cropping
systems. The enhancement occurred just prior to planting the fall wheat
crop which is one of the most critical points in Russian wheat aphid
seasonal dynamics.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998
and the appropriation for fiscal years 1998, 1999 and 2000 is $200,000
for a total of $600,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year.
Answer. State appropriations and the Colorado Wheat Administrative
Committee have demonstrated strong support for this effort. The total
per year is approximately $775,000 in new funding from the state of
Colorado and redirected funds from within the university.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted on the campus of Colorado State
University, at Colorado State University research stations, and on the
farms of cooperators throughout Colorado. Outreach and extension
activities will be focused on wheat growers in Colorado, Nebraska,
Wyoming, Kansas, New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This project is anticipated to continue for a total of five
years with a completion date of July 2003.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This project was evaluated by a Cooperative State Research,
Education and Extension Service site visit on February 4 and 5, 1999.
Laboratory, greenhouse and field research facilities available for the
research program are considered to be excellent. Greenhouse space
appears adequate for the work and the units are well adapted for the
wheat breeding program. Rearing facilities and the support personnel
for maintaining a source of aphids used for bioassays are excellent.
Research laboratories are very well equipped for the studies, either
proposed or underway and there is strong technical support for the
research which involves application of techniques of molecular genetics
to wheat breeding. The research scientists represent strengths in both
classical or traditional wheat breeding and new molecular genetics-
based wheat breeding. The group also has strong, well recognized
expertise in Russian wheat aphid biology, ecology and management as
well as in dryland wheat production systems used in the Great Plains
states. The project is a multifaceted, multi-disciplinary program which
is directed toward long-term solutions for Russian wheat aphid
management utilizing a viable combination of approaches which requires
the type of facilities and equipment available at this location.
SEAFOOD HARVESTING, PROCESSING, AND MARKETING, ALASKA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Seafood Harvesting, Processing, and Marketing
grant.
Answer. This is a new project to be started in fiscal year 2000.
Research related to seafood safety, quality and by-product utilization
will be supported by this grant. CSREES has requested the University to
submit a proposal, which has not yet been received, in support of
fiscal year 2000 funds.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. This will be determined after the proposal is received from
the principal investigator.
Question. What is the original goal of the research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. This will be determined after the proposal is received from
the principal investigator.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. This is a new project for fiscal year 2000. For fiscal year
2000 $552,500 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year 2000?
Answer. This will be determined as the project progresses.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted by scientists at the University
of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
Answer. This will be proposed by the principal investigator(s)
soon.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. As this is a new project, no evaluation has been conducted
at this time.
seafood harvesting, processing, and marketing, mississippi
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Seafood Harvesting, Processing, and Marketing
grant.
Answer. Research related to seafood safety, quality and by-product
utilization has been supported by this grant. Research conducted
included: (1) microbial population changes during retail display of
shrimp,
(2) development of an impedance-based method to rapidly detect
microorganisms on shrimp, (3) determine physical, chemical,
microbiological, and sensory differences between pond and tank
aquaculture tilapia, and (4) evaluate processes for utilization of
uncooked shrimp processing by-products for production of flavor
extracts. Funds from the fiscal year 1999 grant are supporting research
through September 30, 2000. A proposal in support of fiscal year 2000
funds will be requested to (1) evaluate the potential of the xanthene
colorant phloxine B to control Listeria monocytogenes on ready-to-eat
shrimp and (2) determine the survival of organic acid exposed Listeria
monocytogenes in a simulated gastrointestinal model.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that national needs
reflected in the project include providing consumers with affordable
alternative seafood products. Alternative sources of seafood protein
are needed because of a drastic decline in natural harvests due to
overexploitation. Other national needs addressed in this project
include reducing pollution during seafood and aquaculture food
processing by converting byproducts into value-added food ingredients
or materials. Regionally, much is unknown about the short and long-term
effects of the new seafood HACCP regulations on the livelihood of
Mississippi seafood and aquaculture food producers and processors who
are typically small and lack sufficient resources to remain
competitive. Continuation of this project will provide continued
assistance to Gulf-Coast seafood processors in meeting new U.S.
regulations as well as new international regulations that are important
for Mississippi export products. Locally, catfish processors are a
major employer of the severely economically depressed Delta region of
Mississippi. By further enhancing the value of catfish products, this
project seeks to improve the livelihood of individuals both on the Gulf
coast and in the aquaculture region of the state.
Question. What was the original goal of the research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goals of the research were to improve the
quality and safety of catfish and improve the utilization of catfish
byproducts and underutilized marine species. Due to successes of the
original project, subsequent efforts are focusing on additional uses of
seafood and aquaculture foods by improving processing strategies and
providing alternative products from waste materials. The project has
thus expanded to include crab, shrimp, oysters, freshwater prawns,
hybrid striped bass, tilapia, and crawfish.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1990
when $368,000 was appropriated for this project. The appropriations for
fiscal years 1991-1993 were $361,000 per year; fiscal year 1994,
$339,000; and fiscal years 1995-1999, $305,000 each year. For fiscal
year 2000 $305,000 has been appropriated. A total of $3,867,500 has
been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The State of Mississippi contributed $1,949 to this project
in fiscal year 1991; $41,286 in fiscal year 1992; $67,072 in fiscal
year 1993; $91,215 in fiscal year 1994; $147,911 in fiscal year 1995;
and $61,848 in fiscal year 1996. Product sales contributed $7,044 in
1991, $13,481 in 1992, $13,704 in 1993, and $5,901 in 1994. Industry
grants contributed $14 in 1992 and $31,796 in 1993. Other non-federal
funds contributed $80 in fiscal year 1991, $838 in 1992, and $17,823 in
1993. The total non-federal funds contributed to this project from 1991
through 1996 was $501,962. In fiscal year 1998, $151,286 in state
funds, $8,790 in self-generated funds, and $23,877 in other non-federal
funds were obtained. Information on funding in 1999 and 2000 is not
currently available.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted by scientists in the
Departments of Food Science and Technology and Agricultural Economics
of the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station at
Mississippi State University and at the Coastal Research and Extension
Center, Seafood Processing Laboratory, in Pascagoula, Mississippi.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
Answer. The original, scheduled date of completion of the
objectives will be September 30, 2000. The work for fiscal year 1999 is
still in progress. A progress report on the achievement of the
objectives was due by March 15, 2000. It should be noted that the work
on this project over the last fiscal year was severely curtailed due to
extensive damage to the seafood processing pilot plant and destruction
of the office facility, both located in Pascagoula, due to a hurricane.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of the
proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual basis.
The last review of the proposal was conducted on June 28,1999. At that
time, the agency science specialist believed that the projects
addressed needs and interests of the regional seafood and aquaculture
industries.
seafood safety/massachusetts
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the grant.
Answer. The agency is in the process of requesting the university
to submit a grant proposal for this new research activity.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
research, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The researchers indicate the need to strengthen the local
and Northeast region fisheries industry by addressing and solving
priority seafood safety issues critical to assuring public health and
maintaining consumer confidence in a variety of economically important
fisheries products.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. This is a new research grant to be funded in fiscal year
2000.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2000
and the appropriation for fiscal year 2000 is $255,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The university estimates that significant non-federal
funding will be provided in fiscal year 2000 primarily from state
sources to cover salaries of the principal investigators. As the
program develops, additional non-federal funding is expected.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted at the University of
Massachusetts--Amherst, Chenoweth Laboratory of the Department of Food
Science through the Agricultural Experiment Station.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
is fiscal year 2002. The project will be initiated in fiscal year 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency will evaluate the progress of this new project
on an annual basis. The university will be required to submit an
accomplishment report each year when the new proposal is submitted to
the agency for funding. Since this is the first year of the program,
the agency will conduct an external peer review of the proposal. The
fiscal year 2000 review will be completed within three weeks of
submission of the proposal.
SMALL FRUIT RESEARCH, OREGON
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Small Fruit Research grant.
Answer. Funding for this special grant has been used to enhance the
production and quality of small fruits-blackberry, blueberry,
caneberry, cranberry, marionberry, raspberry, strawberry and grape in
the Pacific Northwestern states of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
Research has been focused on crop genetics, production/physiology, pest
management, berry/grape processing, marketing, and wine production.
Proposals are selected after examination of their relevance to
priorities identified within the region.
Question. According the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional and local need for this
research?
Answer. There is a considerable demand for fresh and processed
berry products in the United States. The demand is also high in urban
Asian markets where consumer interest for berry products is strong.
Currently, international marketing of Northwest small fruit commodities
involves the sale of traditional products. Research on international
consumer preferences, packaging, and products continues to be
essential. The importance of berry and grape crops to the region has
long been recognized by the three Northwest states: Washington, Idaho
and Oregon. These crops are mainstays of high-value, specialty
horticulture. The universities and small fruits industry have made a
strong commitment to the improvement of these crops as evidenced by the
high level of internally developed resources for research and
marketing. Thus, the Northwest Center for Small Fruit Research has
developed effectively over the last 8-10 years into its present fully
established form.
Question. What was the original goal of this research, and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. Genetic improvement of small fruit cultivars continues to
be a powerful tool using germplasm collection and identification, field
evaluation of new germplasm and advanced selections from breeding
programs, virus identification and elimination, and approaches that
utilize genetic engineering. Research is identifying cultivars and
developing cultural practices that growers can utilize to reduce crop
losses. Research is evaluating and investigating nutritional factors,
cultural management, temperature stress, effects of pruning, micro
propagation, cold hardiness/low temperature injury and effects of
viticulture practices on wine quality of winery processing on wine
quality. Small fruit research continues to reap acclaim for its
components involving industry-driven cooperation between industry,
state and federal research. Its genesis as a small-fruits program
reflects the contributions of plant biology, the commitment to
facilitating the efficiency of research and the coordination of
marketing throughout a multi-state region. The Center represents an
innovative organization which has created a cooperative strategy for
university, USDA's--Agricultural Research Service, and industry small
fruit programs.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000.
Answer. The initial support for this grant was an appropriation in
fiscal year 1991 for $125,000. The fiscal appropriation for 1992 and
1993 was $187,000 per year; fiscal year 1994 was $235,000; fiscal years
1995-1998 were $212,000 each year; fiscal year 1999 was $300,000; and
was $300,000 for fiscal year 2000. A total of $2,182,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. This project involves the use of OSU administrative
personnel, equipment, utilities and facilities that are indirect costs
to the project. These costs constitute an OSU contribution to this
research project, which is not allowable as a reimbursable expense
under this project. The recent passage of Oregon's tax limitation laws
reduce revenues that restrict our ability to cost share. Thus, our
policy is that we do not provide any cost sharing or matching funds for
this or other agreements in which we receive no indirect costs. We are
committed to providing the required collaborative efforts by Oregon
State University scientists and administrators to complete the work
described in this proposal.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being conducted at Oregon State University,
Washington State University and the University of Idaho. Oregon State
University is the lead institution for this project.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objectives of small fruit research are still
valid researchable issues because they encompass research focused on
such diverse topics as: crop genetics, production/physiology, pest
management, berry/grape processing, marketing, wine production,
international consumer preferences, and specialty horticulture. Much
progress has taken place in meeting the research objectives in these
topics but this is a continuing process with priorities annually re-
evaluated to appropriately adjust research direction within the project
objectives as well as their relevance to priorities identified within
the region.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. There has not been an overall agency evaluation of this
project. However, the project evaluation process is accomplished
annually by peer reviewers whom are chosen and organized by expertise
according to the five technical working groups with input from the
designated Agricultural Experiment Station Representatives in
Washington, Oregon and Idaho. In fiscal year 1999, for example, there
were 19 project reports which were evaluated for each of the recipients
of grants. Each submitted proposal is peer-reviewed by a panel of five
individuals (three scientists and two industry representatives) and is
grouped into one of the Center Technical Working Groups, namely
genetics, pest management, production/physiology, processing/packaging,
and marketing. Each proposal is evaluated on the following criteria:
(1) The nature of the proposed research and its relevance to the needs
of the small fruit industries; (2) The relevance of the proposal to
current small fruit research designated priorities; (3) The scientific
expertise of the scientists involved--training, experience, and
accomplishments relative to specific areas of small fruit research; (4)
The appropriateness of the level of funding requested, vis-a-vis,
availability of funds; and (5) The likelihood of success. Reviewers
complete an evaluation sheet for each proposal, rating the five
criteria on a scale of one to ten, with ten being the best. Previously
awarded projects are given special consideration in order to allow for
funding for up to three years (when appropriate progress is
demonstrated). Compilation of evaluations are distributed to the three
Agricultural Experiment Station Directors and the USDA-ARS
Horticultural Crops Research Laboratory Research Leader, who make the
final determination of funding for each proposed project. Notification
of awards are made in December. The peer review of all proposals is
coordinated and processed through the Northwest Center for Small Fruit.
An agency-level site review of the Small Fruit Research project will be
performed in the coming year.
SOUTHWEST CONSORTIUM FOR PLANT GENETICS AND WATER RESOURCES
Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Southwest Consortium for Plant Genetics and Water
Resources Program grant.
Answer. New Mexico State University, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Texas Tech University, the University of Arizona, and the
University of California at Riverside entered into a cooperative
interdisciplinary research agreement constituted as the Southwest
Consortium for Plant Genetics and Water Resources to facilitate
research relevant to crop adaptation to and semi-arid regions. The
overall goal of the Consortium is to bring together multi-disciplinary
scientific teams to develop innovative advances in plant biotechnology
and related areas to bear on agriculture and water use in and semi-arid
regions. All grants made to the participating Institutions are awarded
competitively by a scientific peer review process.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. This research is highly significant to national, regional,
and local needs. The Consortium is conducting an integrated program
that identifies specific problems of southwest agriculture, coordinates
water and biotechnology research aimed at solving these problems, and
facilitates the transfer of this information for commercialization. The
specific research objectives of the Consortium include the development
of crops with resistance to drought and temperature extremes, adverse
soil conditions, and pests and parasites.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research is to enhance the
adaptation of agricultural crops to and semi-arid crop environments.
Five participating institutions have developed research plans
consistent with the Consortium's goals. Mini-grants to support research
that would solve problems unique to southwest agriculture are awarded
competitively following peer review. Specific attention is given to
interdisciplinary agricultural research. Since its inception in 1985,
the Consortium has provided essential support for the establishment of
baseline data on new, forward thinking research relevant to the
improvement of and lands agriculture. Accomplishments include the
identification of chromosome regions conferring water use and
transpiration efficiency in wheat, an analysis of the impacts of water
stress on host plant resistance to aphids and whiteflies on melon, and
an evaluation of genetic variation of water-soluble carbohydrates in
spring wheat and salt-tolerance mechanisms.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1986
and has been provided with appropriations of the following amounts:
fiscal year 1986, $285,000; fiscal years 1987 through 1989, $385,000
per year; fiscal year 1990, $380,000; fiscal years 1991 through 1993,
$400,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $376,000; and fiscal years 1995
through 2000, $338,000 per year. A total of $5,424,000 has been
appropriated since fiscal year 1986.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The Consortium's lead institution, New Mexico State
University, reports matching non-federal funds of $80,000 in state
appropriations in 1992 and $100,000 in 1993 through 1998. Non-federal
funds spent on this project originate from the five institutions that
participate in the Consortium and support researchers' salaries,
facilities, equipment maintenance, and administrative assistance.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted by the member institutions of
the consortium, which includes New Mexico State University; Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Texas Tech University; the University of Arizona,
and the University of California at Riverside.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The project was initiated in 1986 and accomplished
significant results in the first five years. Additional and related
objectives have been developed and anticipated completion date for
these is 2001. The Consortium is successfully achieving its objectives
through the funding of new interdisciplinary projects each year.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Mini-grants are awarded competitively to support research
that will solve problems unique to agricultural production in the
Southwest. The mini-grant selection process is competitive. Proposals
are evaluated by external peer reviewers, the Consortium Steering
Committee, and the Consortium Scientific Committee. The review process
includes pre-proposal screening by the Consortium Steering and
Scientific committees, and review of all new proposals by external and
internal panels. An internal review of a progress report on each
project is completed before the second year of funding is released.
SOYBEAN CYST NEMATODE
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Soybean Cyst Nematode grant.
Answer. The research being funded by this grant is crucial to the
development of effective management strategies to understand host
parasite relationships of the pathosystems and each of its components.
Work has dealt mainly with identifying Heterodera glycines-resistant
genes and incorporating them into agronomically superior cultivars.
Basic studies elucidate the fundamental biology of the cyst nematode in
regard to new management strategies. Applied work dealt with evaluating
production systems and to new management strategies. This project was
not awarded competitively but has undergone peer review at the
university level and merit review at CSREES.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for the
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that although this
research is focused on the soybean cyst nematodes in Missouri, the
problems are of regional and national significance. The soybean cyst
nematode, Heterodera glycines is the most serious pest of soybean in
the United States. The problems continue to increase in the Midwest
where 12 states have yield reductions in soybean because of this
nematode. Due to the nematodes ability to adapt to resistant varieties
over time, new varieties are continually needed.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this research is managing soybean cyst nematode
through the various management strategies including the development of
new resistant soybean varieties. To date, several nematode resistant
soybean lines have been or will be released. The need for breeding
soybean lines to develop resistant varieties with a broad spectrum of
resistance continues. More fundamental research involves the
utilization of new molecular technologies to identify genes responsible
for resistance. DNA fingerprinting of 118 soybean lines have identified
several different genes for soybean cyst nematode resistance. Other
aspects of the work relates to field management strategies for these
nematodes. Studies on nitrogen fertilizers and tillage have indicated
that these may not be important in management of soybean cyst nematode.
Question. How long has work been underway and how much has been
appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1979, $150,000; fiscal years 1980-1981, $250,000
per year; fiscal year 1982, $240,000; fiscal years 1983-1985, $300,000
per year; fiscal years 1986-1989, $285,000 per year; fiscal year 1990,
$281,000, fiscal year 1991, $$330,000; fiscal years 1992-1993,
$359,000, fiscal year 1994, $337,000; fiscal years 1995-1997, $303,000
per year; fiscal year 1998, $450,000; fiscal year 1999, $475,000 and
fiscal year 2000, $475,000. A total of $6,880,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $105,012 state appropriations in 1991; $84,368 state
appropriations in 1992; $168,017 state appropriations in 1993; $118,725
state appropriations in 1994; $33,498 in 1995 and 1996; $33,723 in
state appropriations in 1997; $37,445 in state appropriations in 1998;
$201,994 in 1999; and an estimated $200,000 in 2000.
Question. Where is this work carried out?
Answer. This research is being conducted at the Missouri
Agriculture Experiment Station and the University of Missouri.
Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Many objectives are being met but genetic interaction of
the soybean cyst nematode/soybean is extremely complex. The anticipated
completion date of the continuing research is 2004-2006.
Question. What was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The last evaluation of this project was a merit review in
January, 1999 and the renewal project will be evaluated in 2000. In
summary, continued development of new management strategies for the
soybean cyst nematode is extremely important. Progress continues with
new varieties with nematode resistance being released yearly as well as
excellent progress in other management strategies. Certified seed of
MPV437-NRR was made available to farmers in 1999. A new soybean
variety, 19Anand' was released this year. Another high yielding soybean
strain, S96-1908 was developed that is resistant to all races of
soybean cyst nematodes and is being evaluated in the uniform tests.
More fundamental research involves the utilization of new molecular
technologies to identify genes responsible for resistance. Seven
genetic markers associated with loci controlling resistance to soybean
cyst nematode were found in Peking which may be useful in marker
assisted selection for resistant lines. Other aspects of the works
relates to field management strategies for these nematodes including
effects of nutrient uptake on nematode development. A seven year study
of the effects of soybean cyst nematode on soybean growth and
development was recently completed. It showed among other things, that
a grower's choice of tillage methods and date of planting are
relatively unimportant in their strategy to control soybean cyst
nematodes. Another study indicated that nitrogen accumulation and
fixation are limited under high soybean cyst nematode infections.
STEEP--WATER QUALITY IN PACIFIC NORTHWEST
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the STEEP--Water Quality in the Pacific Northwest
grant.
Answer. The STEEP III study was established in 1996 as the third
phase of the tri-state STEEP Program entitled ``Solutions to
Environmental and Economic Problems,'' to meet the needs of farmers and
ranchers in the Pacific Northwest in solving severe problems with soil
erosion and water quality, while maintaining economically and
environmentally sustainable agricultural production. An open call for
research proposals is held by three cooperating states, Idaho, Oregon,
and Washington. Awards are made competitively after both internal and
external peer reviews within the states, and merit review by the
agency. The project is in a new phase, and is just known as STEEP, as
the STEEP III objectives have been completed.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. According to the research proposal, the soils of the
Pacific Northwest wheat region are subject to severe wind and water
erosion, which has taken a heavy toll of the topsoil in a little more
than 100 years of farming. Due to the hilly terrain, water erosion has
reduced potential soil productivity in the high rainfall areas of the
region by about 50 percent. Wind erosion has reduced productivity on
the sandy soils in the lower rainfall areas. Also, off-site
environmental costs of water erosion are large. Although many of these
are difficult to measure, they include damage from sediment to
recreational areas, roadways, and other areas which costs taxpayers
millions of dollars annually. Wind erosion, which occurs mostly in the
spring and fall, also can be costly and environmentally damaging to air
quality, and causes increasing concerns for human health and safety
from blowing dusts. Water quality degradation is of increasing concern
in the agricultural areas of this region, since sediment is a major
pollutant of surface water runoff which may also carry potential
chemical contaminants. The complex hydrology of the region's landscape
has made it difficult to identify the sources of these chemicals in
surface and ground waters. A new major emphasis has been the funding of
direct seed research in combination with a reduction in summer fallow
and more complex crop rotations. Direct seed is synonymous with no till
where tillage is eliminated or reduced to a very minimum. Consequently
soil and wind erosion are reduced significantly, improving soil and
water quality and contributing to salmon recovery.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The primary goals are: to obtain and integrate new
technical/scientific information on soils, crop plants, pests, energy,
and farm profitability into sustainable, management systems; to develop
tools for assessing the impacts of farming practices on soil erosion
and water quality; and to disseminate conservation technology to the
farm.
The original STEEP and following STEEP II and STEEP III projects
for erosion and water quality control, have provided growers a steady
flow of information and technologies that have helped them meet
economic, environmental, and resource conservation goals. Through the
adoption of these technologies, the researchers believe that growers of
wheat, barley, and other alternative crops have been able to reduce
soil erosion by water and wind, improve water quality, and maintain or
increase farm profitability. This has been accomplished through a tri-
state, multi-disciplinary, multi-agency approach of basic and applied
research, along with technology transfer and on-farm testing to assist
growers with applying these research findings on their farms. The on-
farm testing program has directly involved growers and stakeholders in
the planning and conduct of the research and educational efforts--and
has helped growers evaluate conservation options, such as residue
management, to meet conservation compliance requirements.
STEEP programs have helped position farmers with new conservation
technologies, such as direct seeding management systems, well in
advance of deadlines to meet current and anticipated policy
requirements. This preparation protects farmers against potential
penalties and loss of government program benefits. The new emphasis on
direct seeding has significantly reduced summer fallow through more
annual cropping, and through more emphasis on alternative crops.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991,
and the appropriations for fiscal years 1991-1993 were $980,000 per
year; in fiscal year 1994, $921,000; in fiscal year 1995, $829,000; and
in fiscal years 1996-2000, $500,000 per year. A total of $7,190,000 has
been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $938,812 state appropriations, $63,954 product sales,
$156,656 industry, and $16,994 miscellaneous in 1991; $1,025,534 state
appropriations, $75,795 product sales, $124,919 industry, and $88,696
miscellaneous in 1992; $962,921 state appropriations, $62,776 product
sales, $177,109 industry and $11,028 miscellaneous in 1993; $1,069,396
state appropriations, $46,582 product sales, $169,628 industry, and
$22,697 miscellaneous in 1994; and $1,013,562 state appropriations,
$31,314 industry, and $107,151 miscellaneous in 1995. In 1996,
Washington received $231,724 state appropriations; Oregon passed
Measure 5 which reduced revenues and imposed funding restrictions so
they were unable to provide any non-federal cost-sharing or matching
funds; and Idaho contributed $81,525 state support, and $86,242 in
estimated non-federal grant support, for a total non-federal
contribution of $167,767. In 1997, Washington received $197,234 state
appropriations; Oregon continues to have Measure 5 as law and continues
to be unable to provide any non-federal cost-sharing or matching funds;
and Idaho contributed $27,235 state support and $24,525 in estimated
non-federal grant support for a total non-federal contribution of
$51,760. In 1998 and 1999, these same general levels of support have
been continued.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work under STEEP will be done at laboratories and field
research sites at the University of Idaho, Oregon State University, and
Washington State University. Cooperative on-farm testing will be
conducted in cooperation with growers on their fields in Idaho, Oregon
and Washington.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The STEEP II project was completed in 1995, and the results
were compiled in a final, 5-year report in January 1997, showing that
the original objectives have largely been met. The STEEP III project
started in 1996 and will continue through the year 2000 as a 5-year
project.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency's program manager annually reviews progress
reports, proposes new research on the STEEP Program, and attends the
annual meetings to assess progress. The program is evaluated within the
states each year by three committees: grower, technical, and
administrative. Annual progress is reported at an annual meeting and
compiled into written reports. These reports and the meeting are
reviewed annually. Grower and industry input is solicited at the annual
meeting on research objectives and accomplishments. The most recent
evaluation was made at the January 2000 annual meeting which
highlighted direct-seeding technology. This successful meeting
attracted many growers, scientists, and agricultural experts from the
tri-state region. Farmer surveys are also distributed at each annual
meeting, and results compiled to assess whether objectives are being
successfully achieved.
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE, CALIFORNIA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the grant.
Answer. CSREES has requested the university to submit a grant
proposal that has not yet been received.
Question. According to the research proposal or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Since this is the first year of funding for this project,
and the research proposal has not yet been received, that question
cannot be Answered at this time.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. Since the research proposal has not yet been received, and
the project has not yet been funded, there are no stated goals nor
accomplishments to report at this time.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2000
and the appropriation for fiscal year 2000 is $255,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Since the project has not yet been funded, there are no
non-federal funds to report at this time.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The specific locations for this work in California are not
yet available.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of this project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The objectives and completion date have not yet been
determined.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last agency evaluation conducted.
Answer. No evaluation has yet taken place since the project has not
yet begun.
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE, MICHIGAN
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Sustainable Agriculture, Michigan program grant.
Answer. This project is intended to develop agricultural production
systems that are highly productive and profitable and which provide
high quality ecosystem services to local communities and to the
environment. It examines how to achieve a high nutrient flow from soil
to crops and animals, and back to soil, with low loss to ground and
surface waters. The grant is allocated, by the Michigan Agricultural
Experiment Station, to priority areas within the general area of
sustainable agriculture. Grants are awarded based on research merit and
proposal submission.
Question. According to the research proposal or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research.
Answer. The principal researcher believes there is a need to better
understand the biological processes occurring Michigan's high-nutrient-
flow crop and animal systems. With high water tables, networks of lakes
and slow-moving streams, and concern about environmental standards,
field contamination by agricultural production materials is a high
priority.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The objective of this research is the identification,
quantification and description of production ecology information to
permit its use in a significant way in farm management decision making.
Key areas addressed include soil carbon and nitrogen flows, soil
nematode population management and weed seed predation and seedbank
management.
Accomplishments to date include the development of on-farm compost
demonstration sites, collection of research data and computer software
models on water table management, completion of initial research trials
on rotational grazing at three sites in Michigan, widespread testing of
cover crops in several crop rotation systems, and tests of the use of
nematology community structure as a method of detecting difference
among farming systems. Findings from this project have demonstrated
that rotational grazing reduces production costs, and increases net
profits, compared to traditional cow management. This project has also
shown that composting is an effective way of stabilizing livestock
waste, controlling odor, and improving nutrient composition for later
land application. Cover crop development as an integrated tool is
becoming quite advanced. Frost seeding of wheat with clover is
increasingly used; approximately one-third of Michigan's wheat acreage,
by some estimates, is overseeded. Results are being integrated into a
series of practical publications partially supported by this grant. The
first in the series, ``Michigan Field Crop Ecology,'' received an
American Society of Agronomy award in 1998 for excellence as an
Extension publication. A second volume, on field crop pest ecology, and
similar volumes for fruit and vegetable ecology are under development.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994
with an appropriation of $494,000; $445,000 were appropriated in fiscal
years 1995 through 2000, bringing total appropriations to $3,164,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Matching funds were provided at the state level for
$511,900 in fiscal year 1994, $372,319 for fiscal year 1995, and
$359,679 in fiscal year 1996. Matching support was not reported in
fiscal years 1997 through 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This work is being carried out in Michigan at several
locations by Michigan State University. Locations include the Kellogg
Biological Station, the Upper Peninsula Experiment Station, and farms
around the state.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of this project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original project, begun in 1994, was proposed through
April of 1997. Its specific objectives were met, with additional
objectives addressed in subsequent related proposals. The current
project is currently scheduled to go through June 30, 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last agency evaluation conducted.
Answer. A formal evaluation of the Principal Investigator's program
was concluded in 1997, commissioned by the C.S. Mott Foundation through
an independent consultant. The project continues to have annual peer
review. According to the Principal Investigator, the proposal has gone
through the normal Michigan State University review process. First, all
teams and collaborators of the project have met and reviewed the entire
proposal with several suggestions and changes being incorporated.
Secondly, research administrators in the fields of agronomy/soil
science and entomology/pest management covering the major dimensions of
the proposal have reviewed it for scientific appropriateness and
accuracy as well as for overall balance and likelihood of achieving
objectives. Their comments have been included as revisions to the
proposal.
SUSTAINABLE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, PENNSYLVANIA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resources,
Pennsylvania project.
Answer. This project studies the cycling of nutrients in soil and
crops with special emphasis on the development of indices for
measurement of soil health. Specific goals are to identify indicators
of a soil ecosystem that maintains a high level of active soil organic
matter, and to develop nutrient and carbon budgets for managing on-farm
cropping systems.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Degradation of soil health/quality is a most serious
problem for agriculture both in the mid-Atlantic region and throughout
the nation. State governments both regionally and nationally are
attempting to address the issue of soil and water degradation in
cropping systems and in intensive animal agriculture. Traditional soil
test results are not providing the needed answers for effective
nutrient management.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to understand the
cycling of nutrients and to use that knowledge to develop practical
indicators of soil quality and health. If farmers are to manage their
farm lands properly, indicators of soil quality and health must be
developed that can be used by agricultural producers and consultants.
Efforts under this project have been devoted to this goal with
significant accomplishments to date. Management practices have been
found to affect soil microbiology, and the fate of nutrients from crop
residues and legume cover crops is being elucidated. A significant
indicator of soil quality has been identified: measurement of the
decomposition of filter paper has been shown to be an effective
indicator of plant residue decomposition, which in turn has been shown
to be highly correlated to nitrogen mineralization and also shows
promise as an indicator of soil biological activity. Experiments are
underway to refine this approach.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported under this grant began in fiscal year
1993. The appropriation for fiscal year 1993 was $100,000; $94,000 in
fiscal years 1994 through 1998; $95,000 in fiscal years 1999 and 2000,
for a total of $760,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. According to the principal investigator, non-federal funds
from university, state, and private industry sources were as follows:
$195,901 in 1996, $369,574 in 1997, $324,724 in 1998, and $36,469 in
1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted by the Pennsylvania State
University with cooperators throughout the state, at the Hunter
Rotation Experiment at Penn State's R.E. Larson Research Center near
Rock Springs, Pennsylvania, at the Rodale Institute Research Center
near Kutztown, Pennsylvania, and on farms around the state.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of this project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The project has met the specific objectives set forth in
the original project which began in 1993 with an ending date in 1995.
The continuing project addresses additional objectives related to the
overall goal. The ending date for the current project objectives is
June 30, 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last agency evaluation conducted.
Answer. There has not been a formal evaluation of this project, but
progress reports have been submitted to the agency and reviewed by our
scientific staff. The project undergoes regular internal evaluation and
assessment as part of Penn State's major effort in soil quality and
nutrient management research.
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE SYSTEMS, NEBRASKA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the integrated crop and livestock research program
for Nebraska.
Answer. This project is aimed at integration of field crops, animal
production, agroforestry, livestock waste management, and diversified
enterprises to meet production, economic, and environmental quality
goals.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Farmers and ranchers in Nebraska and throughout the Midwest
face increasing difficulties in maintaining profitable operations that
are sustainable under increased production costs and more stringent
environmental regulations. They continue to seek alternative production
systems, integration of crop and animal enterprises, value-added
products, including those from woody perennials, and new marketing
approaches to secure more of the food dollar. Work on crop residue
utilization is highly important to assess the loss of erosion
mitigation when grazing occurs as well as the benefits of winter forage
to production of lean beef. Erosion is still a major problem with
monoculture cropping, and work with contour strips, residue management,
and animal grazing is essential to provide good recommendations to
farmers for how to manage fragile lands.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. This project has addressed a number of questions related to
the management of integrated crop and livestock enterprises. The work
on composting has Answer.ed questions about the costs of composting,
improved the nutrient content of compost, and evaluated different
spreading technologies. The work on contour strip cropping, residue
management, no-till planting, and cover crops has demonstrated ways to
reduce erosion on highly erodible land. Studies of grazing on corn
residues under different tillage and management systems are determining
the forage value of residue and the impact of grazing on subsequent
crop production.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. This project began in fiscal year 1992, with an
appropriation of $70,000; subsequent appropriations are as follows:
$70,000 in fiscal year 1993; $66,000 in fiscal year 1994; and $59,000
in fiscal years 1995 through 2000. Total appropriations to date are
$560,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Matching funds provided for this research include state
funds in the amount of $25,313 for fiscal year 1992; $26,384 for fiscal
year 1993; $27,306 for fiscal year 1994; $36,091 in fiscal year 1995;
and $24,267 in fiscal year 1996. No matching funds were reported in
fiscal years 1997 through 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted by the University of Nebraska
at several locations in Nebraska, with the major part of the project at
the Agricultural Research and Development Center near Mead, Nebraska.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of this project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original project proposed work through March of 1994.
The current project proposes work addressing additional related
objectives through March 31, 2002. It is expected that current
objectives of the project will be met by this time period.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last agency evaluation conducted.
Answer. There has not been a formal evaluation of this project, but
progress reports have been submitted to the agency and reviewed by our
scientific staff. The grant was awarded competitively within the
University of Nebraska, and the integrated farm project has been
reviewed annually for technical merit and progress toward goals by the
internal review process of the university.
SUSTAINABLE BEEF SUPPLY, MONTANA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Sustainable Beef Supply, Montana grant.
Answer. The Sustainable Beef Supply, Montana project is a
cooperative effort between Montana State University and the Montana
Stockgrowers Association to develop a system to provide information
feedback among various segments of the beef industry. This may be one
of only a very few joint efforts between a university and a commodity
group currently in progress in the United States. A systems approach is
being utilized to monitor and track calves from ranches in Montana to
feedlots in other states and eventually to the packing plant.
Information collected throughout the production cycle is shared among
all owners of the cattle.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The need for this research is to develop a reliable and
predictable supply of safe, consumer-friendly beef of high quality. The
beef industry is becoming more consumer focused, and specific quality
and consistency targets are being established in all segments of the
industry. To meet consumer needs and return additional revenue to
cattle producers, a systems network must be in place to ensure that a
high quality and consistent product is being produced. Central to this
networking approach is the exchange of information among all segments
of the industry from producer to consumer.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goals of this project are: Develop and conduct
educational programs on how to attain beef quality assurance standards,
provide certification of feeder calves that have met defined management
protocols, and provide information feedback from the feedlot and
packing plant to the cow-calf producer to determine if the feeder
calves met requirements for quality, consistency, safety, and red meat
yield. A training manual was developed and 1,000 copies were
distributed. Thirty-five quality assurance educational programs were
conducted in Montana and county extension agents were trained to
deliver this program to producers. Approximately 25,000 calves were
certified. A statewide audit of ranchers has been initiated to
determine what value-added practices are being utilized related to
breeding, health management, nutrition and marketing. A research
project involving 2,000 calves at 12 ranches has been initiated to
determine if a standardized weaning protocol of vaccinations and
nutrition can reduce the morbidity of calves after they enter the
feedlot.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999.
The appropriation for fiscal year 1999 was $500,000 and for fiscal year
2000 was $637,500 for a total appropriation of $1,137,500. There are no
other sources of funding available from other CSREES programs.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The Montana Department of Agriculture has contributed
$15,000 and the Montana Stockgrowers Association has contributed $5,000
in fiscal year 2000.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted at Montana State University and
on cooperating Montana ranches.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. It is anticipated that it will take three to four years of
funding to fully achieve the objectives of this project. Progress to
date has been very encouraging. Approximately 1,000 producers have
received quality assurance training and 25,000 calves were certified as
being managed under specified best management practices. The goal is to
certify 75,000 calves annually in this program.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This is a new project and is not far enough along to be
effectively evaluated. The project was peer-reviewed at the University
before submission. The proposal was also merit reviewed by the agency
prior to funding.
SUSTAINABLE PEST MANAGEMENT FOR DRYLAND WHEAT, MONTANA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Sustainable Pest Management for Dryland Wheat,
Montana grant.
Answer. Montana State University researchers are studying the
influence of four cropping sequences and two tillage systems on
insects, weeds, plant pathogens, nutrient management, physical and
biological properties of soil, economic profitability, and
environmental benefits. The research is being conducted on large
experimental blocks in the three different dryland farming regions of
northern, central, and eastern Montana. Each site differs
climatologically and agronomically from one another yet represents a
significant production area within the state.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. This project addresses pest management issues under
different cropping sequences and tillage practices utilized in the
Northern Great Plains for dryland wheat production. The wheat-fallow-
wheat system used by many farmers in the region favors the build up of
many pests. Dollar losses due to insects, competitive weeds, and plant
pathogens in dryland wheat production in Montana alone are staggering.
For example, annual losses attributed to wheat stem sawfly exceeds $25
million; wild oat infestations causes an estimated $50 million in
harvest losses and management costs; and wheat streak mosaic has a
monetary loss of $37.5 million. These and other pests also increase
reliance on pesticides for crop protection which impacts environmental
quality, increases production costs, and causes secondary pest
outbreaks and resistance. The agronomic, environmental, and economical
benefits of diversified crop rotations are numerous, but these benefits
are largely unknown or not documented in dryland wheat production. As a
result of this multi-disciplinary project, we can significantly reduce
the economic impact of agriculturally important pests, improve soil
health, reduce production costs, and improve production efficiency.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The second cropping season was completed at the
northcentral site in 1999. Data were collected from 26 different
cropping sequences grown under two tillage systems. Crops grown
included spring wheat, pea, chickpea, and lentil, cool oilseed, for
example, mustard, warm oilseed, or safflower, and sunflower. Numerous
physical and chemical attributes of the soil were measured again in
1999 including available nutrients, soil aggregate characteristics, pH,
forms of nitrogen, bulk density, salinity, water flow rates and water
holding capacity. There was no detectable wheat streak mosaic virus and
there was no evidence of foliar fungal diseases in any of the wheat
plots. Crop data taken included dates of plant emergence, vegetative
dry matter, yield components, and straw residue. Above ground insects
in different crop rotations were estimated by sweep samples, sticky
traps and pheromone traps. Soil-inhabiting arthropods were sampled by
removing soil cores from selected cropping sequences.
The first cropping season was completed at the central location in
1999. The crop rotations include 5 sequences of cereals, oilseeds,
legumes and forages grown under high and low input systems. High input
treatments included seeding at the recommended times for maximizing
yields, seeding at recommended rates, band applying nitrogen
fertilizer, and implementing a standard herbicide program. Low inputs
were characterized by delaying seeding of cereal until annual weeds
have emerged, seeding small grains at 90 lb/ac, and applying herbicides
only as needed. Data were recorded throughout the growing season at
this site in 1999 on physical and chemical attributes of soils, plant
pathogens, insects, weeds, and crop emergence, vegetative dry matter,
yield components, and residue cover.
The main treatment effects and cropping sequences at the third
research site in northeast Montana are currently being established.
Ground preparation through mechanical tillage and herbicide
applications at this site began in fall 1998. The entire 25 acre site
was cropped to spring wheat in 1999.
Related investigations currently supported by this project include
a weed science study delineating the spatial distribution of wild oats
and wheat stem sawfly in dryland spring wheat. A second project focuses
on the chemical ecology of wheat stem sawflies. We now have convincing
evidence that male and female sawflies produce different compounds that
are vital in locating mates. Experiments have been designed to collect,
isolate and identify chemical volatiles released by sawflies. A dozen
compounds have been identified as components of pheromones released by
sawflies. An experimental trap design with a synthetic pheromone lure
was field tested in 1999 and proven to be effective in attracting
sawflies. Thus, the feasibility of using sawfly pheromones to manage
this ubiquitous pest appears achievable.
Question. this work been underway and how much has been
appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. This work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1997
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1997 was $200,000, for fiscal
years 1998 and 1999, $400,000 per year and for fiscal year 2000,
$425,000. A total of $1,425,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-federal funds of $42,000, $80,000 and $80,000 from the
Montana Wheat and Barley Committee were provided for project support
during 1997, 1998 and 1999, respectively. The Montana Agricultural
Experiment Station provided $25,000 in state support. Private
industries provided $5,000 during 1999.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted in three distinct dryland areas
of Montana in the north, central and northeast, located on producer
owned land. Each field site is within 45 miles of a Montana State
University Agriculture Experiment Station research center.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The project was initially proposed for a duration of 3
years. However, this project is envisioned as a long term project and
will require a total of 12 years to see it to completion.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Yearly progress reports will be used to track the
effectiveness of the program of research with the first agency
evaluation scheduled for October 2000. Assessment of the precision of
biological control organisms and estimates of profitability,
marketability, and risk will be used to assess progress.
SWINE WASTE MANAGEMENT, NORTH CAROLINA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Swine Waste Management, North Carolina, grant.
Answer. During the past year, this multi-disciplinary project has
expanded existing university efforts that have included plans to
develop a prototype system for the treatment of animal waste which will
be used to study and optimize new and innovative swine waste treatment
processes. Specifically, the current project is focusing on the
following topics: biological safety and nutrient quality of phosphoric
acid-preserved animal mortality products processed by rendering,
extrusion, and fluidized-bed cooking/dehydration; beneficial effects of
swine manure biosolids on plant disease suppression; evaluation of
alternative compost products; use of processed animal waste as a
nitrogen and phosphorus source for Fraser Fir Christmas trees;
production of a commercially viable feed ingredient from animal wastes,
cull sweet potatoes and soybean hulls; routine techniques for
monitoring the nutritional value of processed animal waste; residual
dietary phytase activity; and phosphorus, calcium and nitrogen content
in fresh and composted manure.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The urgency for addressing environmental concerns relative
to the intensive production of livestock and poultry continues to
intensify in the United States. This is reflected by strategies
currently proposed jointly by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
and U. S. Department of Agriculture. In North Carolina, where livestock
and poultry production account for approximately $5 billion in farm
gate income annually, issues of adequate land area for recycling animal
manures for crop uptake of nitrogen and phosphorus in some counties of
intensive animal agriculture is especially sensitive. North Carolina is
also currently in the process of implementing odor rules that will
impact animal agriculture. Several other states and local regions are
facing the same concerns. It is anticipated that deliverables from this
research project will have a local, state and national impact.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The specific goals for this project include the following.
Utilize the North Carolina State University Animal Poultry Waste
Management Center waste processing facility to develop optimum methods
processing animal waste-based nutrients for use as value-added
products. Installation of solid separation system at the Animal Poultry
Waste Management Center waste processing facility. Collect samples and
establish supply sources of various types of animal waste by-products
for conducting commercial scale processing and end-product evaluations.
Evaluate materials processed for plant nutrients or feedstuffs. Set up
and conduct field demonstration involving potential market use for
value-added products produced. Complete summary of data for publication
and presentation at workshops, conferences and professional meetings
These goals required assimilation of a multidisciplinary research
team, and completion of facilities that are able to heat treat,
dehydrate, blend, extrude, compost and pelletize the by-products to
produce potentially valuable organic fertilizers or feed supplements.
These tasks have been completed, and the individual projects described
previously are underway.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1997
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1997 was $215,000; fiscal year
1998 was $300,00; fiscal year 1999 was $500,000; and fiscal year 2000
is $500,000. A total of $1,515,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. This federally funded project has helped leverage funds
procured from the state as well as private sector. For example, during
the past fiscal year approximately $735,000 in state funds have been
provided--for the development and demonstration of alternative swine
waste treatment technologies--plus approximately $150,000 from industry
and commodity groups in support of objectives related to this project.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This work is being conducted at North Carolina State
University in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Question. What was the anticipated date for the original objectives
of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the anticipated
completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original anticipated completion date was February 1999.
Project objectives were not completed by this date. The time to
complete processes associated with equipment, facilities and safety
plans required for this project, coupled with unavoidable
administrative delays in the secondary award process from federal and
university level for this project, required a request for extension of
the completion date to February 2000. It is anticipated that most
project objectives will be completed by February 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The CSREES conducted an evaluation of the progress of this
work during January, 2000. The project has made significant progress
towards meeting the original goals.
TILLAGE, SILVICULTURE, AND WASTE MANAGEMENT, LOUISIANA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Tillage, Silviculture, and Waste Management
Research Grant?
Answer. This research has six components: Rice and Cotton Tillage,
Bald Cypress and Water Tupelo Silviculture, and Dairy and Poultry Waste
Management. More specifically, the Rice Scientists are looking for ways
to improve stand establishment; the Cotton Scientists are focusing on
the use of tillage systems to combat harmful insect populations; the
Waste Management Scientists are quantifying the environmental and
economic effectiveness of approved dairy and poultry waste disposal
systems; and the Silviculturists are conducting a problem analysis on
factors affecting Bald Cypress and Water Tupelo regeneration. The
project is annually subjected to the university's merit review process.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researchers hypothesize that the crops,
forests, and waste issues addressed by this project extend beyond the
state borders, thus this research has, at a minimum, multi-state to
regional application.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goals were to: improve conservation tillage in
rice and cotton farming; determine the effectiveness of no-discharge
dairy waste treatment facilities; determine acceptable land treatment
levels for poultry waste disposal; and to evaluate wetland forest
regeneration processes. All components of the project have established
research studies and are monitoring progress. For fiscal year 1998 the
silviculture component was placed on hold and a sweet potato project
was added. This decision was prompted by a staffing change in the
Department of Forestry and Wildlife. Prior to this decision, an
annotated bibliography of Bald Cypress Silviculture was completed and
the responsible scientists had begun work on Water Tupelo regeneration.
Question. How long has the project been underway, and how much has
been appropriated, by fiscal year, through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work began in fiscal year 1994. The appropriation for
fiscal year 1994 was $235,000. For fiscal years 1995-2000 the
appropriation was $212,000. This sums $1,507,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. State funding in support of these areas of research exceeds
$750,000 annually.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Investigations are being conducted on the main campus at
Louisiana State University--LSU--as well as the LSU's Experiment
Stations at Calhoun, Crowley, Chase, Winnsboro, St. Joseph, and
Washington Parish, Louisiana.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related projects?
Answer. The original work was scheduled for completion in 1999.
Early term objectives have been met. The added experiments have closing
dates ranging from fiscal years 1999 to 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted?
Answer. The last field evaluation was completed on December 12,
1995. The evaluation summary complimented the scientists on the
interdisciplinary components associated with this project, along with
their investigative procedures, report writing, and external
networking.
TOMATO WILT VIRUS, GEORGIA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the tomato wilt virus research program grant.
Answer. This project supports research to help in the reduction of
major crop losses in the southeastern United States due to Tomato
Spotted Wilt Disease. Research focuses on vector biology and the virus
transmitted by the vector. This project was not awarded competitively
but has undergone peer review at the university level and merit review
at CSREES.
Question. According to this research proposal, or the principal
investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Tomato Wilt Virus has become a major yield-limiting
constraint on a number of very important food crops. This is a problem
world-wide, but in the last ten year spread throughout the Southeastern
states. Since this virus was first observed in Georgia in 1986, it has
caused an estimated $100 million crop loss to the state. The wide host
range of the virus and its vector make this a disease that is difficult
to manage. The new strategies to manage this virus in Georgia will be
applicable to all states where it occurs.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this research is to reduce losses in the major
crops grown in the Southwest due to spotted wilt. This requires
identifying the sources of virus and vectors, determining the dynamics
of the thrips species that transmit the virus, elucidating how the
virus is acquired by thrips to identify possible genes to enhance virus
resistance in plants, and adapting to crops in the Southeast the Risk
Assessment Index for spotted wilt that is currently in implementation
and refinement at the University of Georgia for peanut.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. This grant began in 1999 and has been supported at the
level of $200,000 in fiscal years 1999 and 2000. A total of $400,000
has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds provided for this grant are $84,736
for 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being carried out at the University of Georgia
and The Coastal Plain Experiment Station.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objectives have not been met since this is a
complex research area. The anticipated completion date for the
continuing research is 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project has undergone peer review at the University
level and an agency merit review in January, 1999. In summary, some
progress has been made on all objectives of this research. Some
progress has been made in understanding the relationship of cellular
receptor proteins in the guts of the vector. This will aid in the
identification, characterization and eventually cloning of these genes
that then could be modified against the virus. Progress was also made
in investigating the source of inoculum and seasonal dynamics of the
vector. This included identification of several weed species that are
alternative virus hosts. The Risk Assessment Index for management of
spotted wilt disease was used to evaluate peanut cultivars and
determine how they fit better into management of the virus on peanut.
TROPICAL AQUACULTURE/FLORIDA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the grant.
Answer. The agency is in the process of requesting the university
to submit a grant proposal for this new research activity.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
research, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The researchers indicate that the ornamental fish industry
is unique and important to the local economy where 69 percent of the
total domestic production of ornamental fish occurs in Hillsborough
County and 95 percent of the total production of ornamental fish is in
southern Florida. At a national level, the United States imports 60-70
percent of the ornamental fish sold. This results in a significant
trade deficit that can be reduced by increased domestic production.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. This is a new research grant to be funded in fiscal year
2000.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2000
and the appropriation for fiscal year 2000 is $170,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The university estimates that significant non-federal
funding will be provided in fiscal year 2000 primarily from state
sources to cover salaries of the principal investigators and operating
expenses for the laboratory. As the program develops, additional non-
federal funding is expected.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be primarily conducted at the University of
Florida's Tropical Aquaculture Laboratory located in Ruskin with some
work to be done also at the main campus.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
is fiscal year 2001. The project will be initiated in fiscal year 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency will evaluate the progress of this new project
on an annual basis. The university will be required to submit an
accomplishment report each year when the new proposal is submitted for
funding. Since this is the first year of the program, the agency will
conduct an external peer review of the proposal. The fiscal year 2000
review will be completed within three weeks of submission of the
proposal. The researchers will be requested to develop a research
proposal consistent with the National Science and Technology Council's
Strategic Plan for Aquaculture Research and Development.
TROPICAL AND SUBTROPICAL RESEARCH
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the tropical and subtropical research program grant.
Answer. Tropical and Subtropical Research--T STAR--Program is
operating in coordination with the T STAR Caribbean and the T STAR
Pacific Administrative Groups. State Agricultural Experiment Stations
that are members of the Caribbean group are Florida, Puerto Rico, and
the Virgin Islands; members of the Pacific group are Hawaii and Guam.
The proposals are peer reviewed and are then selected for funding by
the administrative groups.
Non-member institutional interests are represented by the Executive
Director of the Southern Region Agricultural Experiment Station
Directors, who is a member of the Caribbean group, and the Executive
Director of the Western Region Agricultural Experiment Station
Directors, who is a member of the Pacific group. The Agricultural
Research Service also has representation on the two groups, as does the
CSREES scientist who manages the T STAR grant program.
Funds for the program are divided equally between the two Basin
Administrative Groups. The research objective of the program developed
by the principal is to improve the agricultural productivity of many of
the subtropical and tropical parts of the United States. Special
research grants have been awarded for research on controlling insect,
disease, and weed pests of crops; increasing the production and quality
of tropical fruits, vegetables, and agronomic crops; promoting
increased beef production through development of superior pastures;
detection of heartwater disease of cattle and the influence of heat
stress on dairy cattle reproduction; better use of land and water
resources; developing computer models for efficient crop production
systems and animal feeding systems; developing computer models for
land-use decisions; using biotechnology methodologies for improving
plant resistance to viral and bacterial diseases; using biotechnology
to develop non-chemical, or biological, strategies for controlling
insect pests; and potential for growing new speciality crops.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes this program provides
research-generated knowledge that enables informed choices in the
responsible use of natural resources, facilitates the health and well
being of American citizens through improved food safety and nutrition,
provides frontline protection for the rest of the nation's farms and
ranches from serious plant and animal diseases and pests, and enhances
the ability of U.S. farmers to produce crops efficiently and
economically and/or to introduce new crops and agricultural products
with export potential to gain market share abroad. On a regional basis,
the T STAR program addresses the unique challenges of practicing
tropical agriculture, that is, presence of pests year-round, heat
stress, post-harvest processing to meet regulatory requirements for
export, etc. The local need of Americans living in tropical regions of
the nation for T STAR knowledge-based products is to design and
implement sustainable agricultural development within fragile tropical
agroecosystems--particularly on tropical islands--and to develop new
crops and niche markets.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to increase the
production and quality of tropical crops; control pests and diseases of
plants and animals; promote increased beef production; and conserve
land and water resources. Grants have supported research on control
strategies for Melon thrips; the biochemical nature of resistance to
rust in nutsedge; development of bioherbicides for nutsedges;
development of tomato cultivars with resistance to the spotted wilt
virus; development of pheromones for monitoring and controlling the
citrus root weevil; reducing the effects of heat stress in dairy
cattle; development of a decision support system for vegetable
production; finding cucurbits with resistance to silverleaf, developing
a computer program for optimal supplementation strategies for beef and
dairy cattle on tropical pastures; characterizing new strains of citrus
tristeza virus in the Caribbean basin; determining the economic
threshold for the citrus leaf miner on limes; using viral replicase
genes to engineer rapid detection methods for geminiviruses; developing
makers of bacterial spot resistance genes in tomato; breeding snap and
kidney beans for resistance to golden mosaic virus and for heat
tolerance; searching for resistance to papaya bunchy top disease;
developing weed control for yam production; and bioengineering ringspot
virus resistance in papaya.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The operation of the tropical and subtropical research
program was transferred from the Agricultural Research Service to the
CSREES, with funding being first provided in fiscal year 1983. Funds in
the amount of $2,980,000 per year were appropriated in fiscal years
1983 and 1984. In fiscal year 1985, $3,250,000 was appropriated. In
fiscal years 1986, 1987, and 1988, $3,091,000 was appropriated each
year. $3,341,000 was appropriated in fiscal year 1989. The fiscal year
1990 appropriation was $3,299,000. The fiscal years 1991-1993
appropriations were $3,320,000 per year; $3,121,000 in fiscal year
1994; $2,809,000 in fiscal years 1995-1996 per year; and $2,724,000 per
year in fiscal years 1997 through 2000. A total of $54,718,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. For fiscal year 1997, more than $1 million of non-federal
funds were provided to the T STAR program from state appropriations;
for 1998 $856,000; and for 1999 $158,500. These state funds were in the
form of faculty salary time commitments and indirect costs covered by
the institutions.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This research is being conducted in Florida, Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands, Hawaii, and Guam. Work is also being done in other
Pacific and Caribbean countries through agreements between institutions
but not using Federal funds.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional re related objectives?
Answer. Research on tropical crop and animal agriculture to
increase productivity net profits, decrease harmful environmental
impacts, conserve water, and natural resources. Objectives for some
projects have been completed and new objectives addressing new issues
are being developed in this ongoing project.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The projects that are funded by the T STAR Special Research
Grant have been peer reviewed by panels of scientists in the United
States to assure that good science is undertaken. Also, as part of the
grant renewal process, progress reports are reviewed by the two
Administrative Groups and by the grant manager at the national level.
Workshops in which research results and their application for
agricultural production are developed are conducted every two years.
Research papers are published in the appropriate regional, national,
and international forums available.
The development in 1995 of the Strategic Plan for T STAR provided a
mechanism to define priorities, examine program direction, and
recommend operational changes. One of the principal points considered
was to bring the Caribbean and Pacific Basin components closer and
better coordinated. T STAR and the coordination which it implies was an
outcome that will make this program better. Each sub project is peer
reviewed annually at the initiating institution by the T STAR panel and
by the agency National Program Leaders.
TURKEY CARNAVIRUS, INDIANA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Turkey Coronavirus, IN grant.
Answer. The objectives of the research will be to:
--develop enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for detecting antibody
to turkey coronavirus and turkey coronavirus antigen in turkey
flocks,
--elucidate immune responses in turkey poults infected with turkey
coronavirus, and
--determine which immunity, humoral and /or cellular, will provide
the most effective protection for turkey poults against turkey
coronavirus infection.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The need for this research is that the turkey industry
plays a major role in animal agriculture in the U.S. This enteric
disease of young turkey poults, called turkey poult enteritis or poult
enteritis mortality syndrome, has contributed to significant economic
losses by producers in Indiana, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Virginia and other states. The cost to the industry is in the millions.
Currently, no effective medication or vaccination is available for
control and prevention of the disease. Although turkey poults that
recover from the coronaviral enteritis may develop long-term immunity,
little is known about the specific immunity. The proposed research will
lead to further study on the understanding of immunological interaction
between turkey poults and individual turkey coronaviral proteins and
subsequent development of recombinant or a deoxyribonucleic acid
vaccine for effective prevention of the disease. The enzyme-linked
immunosorbent assays that will be developed in this research will
provide an efficient tool for diagnosis and control of turkey poult
enteritis.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the research was to develop enzyme-linked
immunosorbent assays for monitoring antibody to turkey coronavirus and
turkey coronavirus antigen in turkey flocks during acute outbreaks or
recovery and in routine health monitoring and to develop effective
vaccines to protect turkey poults against turkey coronavirus infection.
The investigators' laboratories have successfully propagated turkey
coronavirus from intestines of infected turkey poults in 22-day-old
turkey embryos, purified turkey coronavirus from the embryo intestines
and have demonstrated an acute enteritis with decreased body weight
gain in 7 or 10-day-old turkey poults by oral inoculation of the
purified turkey coronavirus. This establishes an infection model to
study immunology, pathogenicity, and pathogenesis of turkey
coronavirus.
Turkey coronavirus has failed to adapt to grow in cell cultures
after numerous attempts, hindering the development of antibody-capture
enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay--ELISA--for antibody to turkey
coronavirus that requires a large amount of highly purified turkey
coronavirus antigens. Nevertheless, another alternative antigen source
for ELISA has been investigated. Antibody to turkey coronavirus was
found to be cross-reactive with infectious bronchitis virus antigen. An
antibody-capture ELISA for detection of antibody to turkey coronavirus
utilizing commercially-available ELISA plates coated with infectious
bronchitis virus antigens is being developed. Since large numbers of
clinical samples can be handled by ELISA rapidly and accurately,
successful development of ELISA for antibody to turkey coronavirus will
provide the turkey industry with a sensitive and specific tool for the
diagnosis and control of turkey coronavirus infection.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999.
The appropriation for fiscal year 1999 was $200,000 and for fiscal year
2000 was $200,000, for a total of $400,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-federal funds expended on this project in fiscal year
1999 were $72,311.06. These funds included $25,200 from state funds and
$47,111.06 from a private commodity group.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at Purdue University in the
Department of Veterinary Pathobiology and the Animal Disease Diagnostic
Laboratory.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
is December 31, 2001. At present the project is on target to meet its
stated objectives in the designated time period.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This project was initially funded on July 19, 1999 and no
evaluation has been performed since that time.
URBAN PESTS, GEORGIA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Urban Pests, Georgia grant.
Answer. This research is focused on urban pests with specific
emphasis on termites and ants. This project has been evaluated annually
by CSREES.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes subterranean termites and
ants are significant economic pests in the Southeastern United States.
Damage and control costs for termites in Georgia were estimated at
$44.5 million in 1993. It is estimated that professional pest control
operators apply over 23 million pounds of active ingredients in and
around homes each year. Chemicals currently registered for controlling
these pests are less efficacious than desired and applied at an
intensity that exceeds most agricultural settings.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the termite research is to better understand
the biology of subterranean termites and their responses to selected
environmental cues in order to design monitoring, risk assessment, and
precision-targeting control strategies using conventional and
alternative methods. Additionally, an objective is to improve the
identification of subterranean termites to the species level through
studies of the termite genome, cuticular chemistry, morphometric
characteristics and termite behavior. Specific accomplishments in the
termite research are as follows: Multi-disciplinary research using
morphometric comparisons, agonism bioassays, chemotaxonomic phenotypes,
mark-release-recapture and genetic analysis shows that subterranean
termite populations display a multiple-queen colony organization. This
field research also proved that termite movement between established
feeding sites is not random. It demonstrates that current understanding
of termite population structure must be reconsidered. It is clear from
this work that termite population structure cannot be determined using
only a single technique, like the current industry standard of mark-
release-recapture, and that the organization of termite populations is
dynamic. This work raises questions concerning the implementation of
termite baiting control tactics and claims of structural protection
using the current termite baiting technology which in the past four
years has become a multi-million dollar industry in the United States.
This same multi-disciplinary research approach has demonstrated that
the Formosan termites from 7 separate sites in the Atlanta, Georgia,
Metro Area were from a single maternal line and that this maternal line
originated from New Orleans, Louisiana not, Charleston, South Carolina
as originally suggested. The research also provided strong evidence
that the subterranean termite species that is infesting areas in and
around Paris and Southwestern France is from the United States, not
southern Europe. Research on new chemistries demonstrated that the
currently registered non-repellent termiticides require longer than 10
minute exposure times at concentrations at least twice the current
registered application rates to effect greater than 90 percent
mortality in the termites tested in bioassay. This work cannot explain
the purported field efficacy of the new termite control concept of the
``treatment zone'' which allows termites to penetrate the soil but
kills them before they breach the barrier and infest a structure. Field
and laboratory research with insect pathogenic fungi used as a
biological control agent indicate that multiple soil applications are
required and that population impacts are likely limited to the area of
application not disparate feeding sites. Laboratory research on wood
treatments using borate materials indicates that these materials
discourage termite feeding but not exploration for additional,
untreated wood. Tests designed to treat infested structural wood using
a new insecticide chemistry provided evidence of killing termites at
sites untreated by the insecticide but known to be visited by the
population of termites in the treated area.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991
and the appropriation for fiscal years 1991-1993 was $76,000 per year.
In fiscal year 1994 the appropriation was $71,000 and in fiscal years
1995 through 2000 the appropriation was $64,000 each year. A total of
$683,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
by fiscal year were as follows: 1991--none, 1992--$26,000, 1993--
$18,000, 1994--$59,530, 1995--$59,539, 1996--$30,000, 1997--$80,00,
1998--$50,000, and 1999--$100,000.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. This research and technology transfer program is being
conducted at the University of Georgia, Department of Entomology,
Athens, Georgia.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The grants have been processed on a year to year basis
pending the availability of funds, however, the original objectives
were essentially a five-to eight-year plan of work. CSREES
entomologists judge that excellent progress has been made in meeting
the objectives, especially on foraging behavior and the identification
and development of termite baits.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This project has been evaluated on an annual basis by
CSREES through progress reports and by evaluation of contributions
presented through the Entomological Society of America meetings in
December of 1999.
VIDALIA ONIONS, GEORGIA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Vidalia Onions, Georgia grant.
Answer. The research has concentrated on developing pungency
testing procedures to improve quality and sensory consistency of
Vidalia onions.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for the
research?
Answer. Vidalia onions are a specialty crop of extreme importance
to the economy of certain areas of Georgia. The project is directed
toward improving product quality and the nationally and internationally
economic competitiveness of this production system.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The research has demonstrated that chemical tests can be
used to accurately predict the pungency of onions prior to harvest, and
perhaps flavor categorization, to consumers. The results have also
indicated that several diseases affecting onions are the most serious
problem in regard to quality and production.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The project was funded for $84,000 for 1998; for $100,000
in fiscal year 1999; and for $100,000 in fiscal year 2000. A total of
$284,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year.
Answer. The non-federal funding for this project for the last two
years was $193,137 from the state of Georgia and $251,427 in private
funding.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The work is being conducted at the Coastal Plain Experiment
Station in Tifton, Georgia and in test plots in several commercial
field sites.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objections of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional objectives?
Answer. The anticipated duration for the original project was five
years. The initial objective of establishing procedures for pungency
testing has proceeded ahead of schedule. The plant disease problems
that have emerged will likely require several additional years,
although the incidence and severity of these diseases are highly
variable from year to year.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This project is in its second year and a CSREES review has
not yet been done.
VITICULTURE CONSORTIUM, NEW YORK AND CALIFORNIA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Viticulture Consortium grant.
Answer. The University of California and Cornell University in New
York conducted research on varietal responses of grapes, modeling of
water requirements, management of diseases including Phyloxera and
other cultural aspects of grape production. Funds were used by the lead
institutions to fund projects in the various grape producing states
within their region. Grants were made based on peer reviewed proposals
and selected competitively by regional groups based on priorities
developed by researchers, extension, and industry personnel.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The research being carried out is designed to help the
viticulture and wine industries remain competitive in the U.S. and in
the global market. Further, disease and insect problems are a concern
of the industry, especially in new strains of phyloxera while overall
improvement in all cultural management approaches to grape production
need to continue.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research is to maintain or
enhance the competitiveness of the U.S. Viticulture and wine industry
in the global market.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1996-1997, $500,000 per year; fiscal year 1998,
$800,000; fiscal year 1999, $1,000,000 and $1,000,000; in 2000. A total
of $3,800,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Each year the viticulture industry provides matching
contributions in excess of the appropriated federal funds.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being carried out in 8 eastern states and
California through 18 grants.
Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The research priorities set by the guidance group have not
been met. The research is varied and complex and will take many years
to complete.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project underwent merit review in January, 1999. The
research proposals are peer-reviewed in both regions before selection.
The review group is composed on industry, research, and extension
personnel that are experts in viticulture.
WATER CONSERVATION, KANSAS
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the water conservation program grant.
Answer. This research program is designed to develop and
disseminate technical and economic information on the efficient use of
water for irrigated crop production in western Kansas. The program has
the following objectives: 1. Develop regression models to estimate the
longevity of subsurface drip irrigation systems using calculations of
annual system performance deterioration based on 13 years of operating
pressures and flow rates; 2. Evaluate utilization of livestock effluent
with subsurface drip irrigation and its effect on water redistribution
and corn water use patterns; 3. Develop best management practices for
nitrogen fertigation using subsurface drip irrigation systems for corn;
4. Estimate the long run economic impacts of irrigation efficiency
improvements for irrigated corn, wheat, and grain sorghum in the farm
sector and affiliated sectors of the High Plains economy; 5.
Disseminate irrigation research information and best management
practice recommendations to Kansas irrigators through a series of
extension bulletins and updates based on research-based information.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The need to conserve water has focused attention on more
efficient alternatives such as subsurface drip irrigation. This
research will be of particular significance within the state and
region. However, it also has national and international applications as
advanced irrigation systems, such as subsurface drip irrigation, will
be needed to improve irrigation water use efficiency in the next
century. Economic research initiated in 1998 is examining the impact of
adoption of improved water conservation techniques on the entire
regional economy rather than just on the short term economics faced by
the individual irrigator. This research will help society determine
whether society should have a role in providing incentives to increase
adoption rates of water conservation technology.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The research goal is to determine the feasibility of
subsurface drip irrigation and other alternative irrigation systems in
western Kansas to sustain irrigated corn production to support the beef
feedlot industry. The project also supports an educational effort
through collection and dissemination of information on efficient
irrigation methods. Subsurface drip irrigation acreage is increasing in
Kansas and farmers are obtaining results on their own farms.
The computer program Irrigation Economics Evaluation System--IEES--
was distributed by the Kansas State University Cooperative Extension
Service and is being used by Kansas irrigators. A report has been
published which documents the data requirements and algorithms used in
the model. A users guide is also available.
A report entitled ``Economic Analysis of Alternative Irrigation
Systems for Continuous Corn and Grain Sorghum in Western Kansas,'' has
been completed. The results of this study indicate that a low drift
nozzle, center pivot system is the most profitable center pivot system
to use for irrigation of corn and grain sorghum. Overall, a surge flood
system was the most profitable because of its relatively low ownership
costs. Although the subsurface drip system shows some potential, it is
only economically feasible when above-average crop yield and price
conditions exist.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1993
with an appropriation of $94,000; $88,000 in fiscal year 1994; and
$79,000 in fiscal years 1995-2000 each year. The total funds
appropriated are $656,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal state of Kansas funds provided to this
project were as follows: 1997, $119,659 state funds; 1998, $135,993
state funds; and 1999, $129,850 state funds.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being conducted at Kansas State University.
The field portion of the research is being conducted on Research
Centers at Colby and Garden City, Kansas. Additional work is being
carried out on campus at the Departments of Agronomy and Agricultural
Economics in Manhattan, Kansas.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original anticipated completion date for the project
was 1998. One of the most important objectives of the study is to
evaluate longevity of the subsurface drip irrigation systems. These
sites are unique to the region and very little information is available
on system longevity. Pressing water quality problems of a regional and
national scope has necessitated a change in the objectives to
developing nutrient management practices under subsurface drip
irrigation and utilization of livestock wastewater with subsurface drip
irrigation. Additionally, changes in the federal farm program which
allow greater planting flexibility has an effect on how irrigators make
water/land allocation decisions. Field and economic studies related to
allocation strategies, nutrient management, and wastewater utilization
should be completed in three years. The projected completion date is
2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project has been peer reviewed in January 2000. The
reviewers felt the project concept to be valid and the timetable for
accomplishments to be on target.
WEED CONTROL, NORTH DAKOTA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Weed Control, North Dakota grant.
Answer. A major focus has been developing and evaluating systems to
reduce herbicide use in crop production. The experiments of longest
duration are field evaluations of sustainable, reduced tillage and
conventional crop rotation systems to ascertain changes in weed species
and densities and in economic returns over time when weed management is
reduced. Another emphasis has been weed biology, particularly
understanding the unique physiological and genetic traits of herbicide-
resistant kochia and wild oat in an effort to recommend the most cost-
effective management alternatives. Another goal has been to improve the
efficiency of postemergent herbicide use by utilizing additives that
maximize weed control with reduced amounts of herbicide and by reducing
spray volume and adapting new nozzle designs that improve application
techniques.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The research address new methods to control weeds using
systems control. The principles concerning effective use of additives
with postemergent herbicides are being applied to improving the
efficiency of postemergent herbicide use across the nation. Similarly,
adaptation of herbicide application technology that allows reduced
spray volumes while sustaining herbicide effectiveness is of nationwide
benefit. The increased understanding of the inheritance and management
of herbicide resistance in kochia and wild oat will be beneficial to
management of these weeds in the central and northern regions of the
United States where these weeds are abundant and cause major losses
annually. The long-term field experiments should provide useful
information on the positive and negative impacts of reduced weed
management systems wherever spring-sown small grains are the primary
crop.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The initial major activity was a long-term series of
experiments to evaluate changes in weed species and populations and the
economic returns in conventional, sustainable and reduced tillage
systems with rotations that are up to four years long. The research was
initiated in 1993, but atypical wet conditions occurred for the first
three years. It is felt that at least two complete cycles of crop
rotations (eight years) will be necessary to accurately assess what
farmers can expect from adopting new management systems.
The research to improve the efficiency of herbicides lead to
development of the principle that effectiveness of many postemergent
herbicides can be improved by using additives that dissolve the
herbicide. This principle was utilized to develop a basic pH adjuvant
that improves the effectiveness of several postemergent herbicides.
The research with genetics of herbicide-resistant kochia has
determined that inbreeding depression occurs when this naturally cross-
pollinated plant is self-pollinated to develop genetically uniform
plants, which are desirable for many research objectives related to
inheritance of genetic traits. However, this discovery also
demonstrates that cross-pollination must be maintained in kochia for
research intended to accurately simulate genetic changes and
competition with crops that may occur in a field.
Resistance of wild oat to many of the major herbicides used for its
control in the United States has been documented, including resistance
to imazamethabenz which has not been reported previously. Molecular
biology and physiological studies have been initiated to better
understand the cause of imazamethabenz resistance in wild oat, so
management strategies can be recommended. Initial research has
demonstrated that weed control by herbicides applied to weeds of
recommended size has been equally effective when spray-drift-reducing
or conventional nozzles are used. Because drift-reducing nozzles
produce large droplets, the next step of evaluation is being initiated
to determine whether small weeds are treated and controlled effectively
when drift-reducing nozzles are used.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through year 2000?
Answer. The support by this grant began in fiscal year 1992 and
appropriation for fiscal years 1992 and 1993 was $500,000 per year;
$470,000 in fiscal year 1994; and $423,000 per year in fiscal years
1995 through 2000. A total of 4,008,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $27,030 state appropriations in 1992; $48,472 state
appropriations in 1993; $41,969 state appropriations in 1994; $71,847
state appropriations in 1995; $62,134 state appropriations in 1996;
$78,579 state appropriations in 1997; and an estimated $70,000 state
appropriations in 1998 and 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at the North Dakota State
University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original completion date for the long-term rotation
experiment, utilizing the conventional, reduced tillage and sustainable
management systems, was anticipated to be a minimum of five years, but
the experience with atypically environmental conditions suggest that 8
to 10 years will be necessary to attain a relatively steady state or
logical end of the research. The current intent is to continue the
research until at least 2002. The problems encountered due to the
inbreeding depression in kochia suggests that it will be difficult to
determine the true genetic nature of inheritance of herbicide
resistance in this weed as quickly as projected. Due to the discovery
of herbicide resistance of wild oat to imazamethabenz, the genetic and
molecular biology research to characterize the nature of this
resistance is just getting a good start. It is anticipated that the
genetic and biology research with kochia and wild oat will need to
continue until at least fiscal year 2002.
Question. When was the last Agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. A scientific peer review of the written proposal was
conducted in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 by CSREES prior to awarding the
grant. Based on comments from the reviewers, CSREES is planning to
conduct an onsite scientific peer review of this grant.
WETLAND PLANTS, LOUISIANA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Wetland Plants, Louisiana, grant.
Answer. CSREES has requested the university to submit a grant
proposal that is currently in preparation.
Question. According to the principal researcher, what is the
national, regional or local need for this research?
Answer. There is local, regional, and national need for this
research. Coastal wetlands erosion is a serious environmental problem
in many coastal locations around the United States. The problem is
particularly severe in Louisiana where an acre of coastal wetlands is
lost to erosion every 20 minutes. Current technologies, even at great
expense, can only slightly reduce these losses. The research this grant
is funding has the potential to provide a significant improvement with
respect to both the magnitude and expense of future coastal erosion
control efforts.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to develop an
economically-feasible approach to controlling coastal wetlands erosion
that would utilize vegetation to retain areas threatened by erosion and
to rebuild lost land. To accomplish this, a system that incorporates
agricultural principles involved in crop production is required.
Specifically, a seed-based system utilizing appropriate planting
material is required. While last year was the first year of funding for
this project from CSREES, progress has been rapid in developing this
seed-based system, and field trials in the marsh were initiated in
1999.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999,
and the appropriation for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 was $600,000 per
year for a total of $1,200,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $18,391 state appropriations, $5,319 industry grants,
and $8,691 miscellaneous in 1999. In addition, the university had
$110,081 in unrecovered indirect costs.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at the Louisiana Agricultural
Experiment Station.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Since this is a new program, the original objectives have
not yet been met.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This is a new project, and there has been no prior agency
evaluation. An agency evaluation is planned for fiscal year 2000
following one year of project operation.
WHEAT GENETICS, KANSAS
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Wheat Genetics, Kansas grant.
Answer. This project provides partial support for the Wheat
Genetics Resource Center at the University of Kansas. The Center
focuses on collection, evaluation, maintenance, and distribution of
exotic wheat-related germplasm needed to develop new wheat cultivar
resistant to disease, insects and environmental stress.
Question. According to the research proposal or the principal
research, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes most cultivated varieties
of wheat are derived from common sources. They lack the rich genetic
diversity needed to develop resistance to diseases, insects, and
environmental stress. The replacement of genetically-rich primitive
cultivar and land races by modern, more uniform cultivars all over the
world is causing erosion of wheat germplasm resources. New pests or
those that have overcome varietal resistance pose a constant threat to
the Nation's wheat production. Genetic resistance often resides in wild
relatives of wheat. The researchers believe this program, which was
established in Kansas, is providing service to wheat breeders
nationally and internationally.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to enhance the
genetic diversity available to wheat breeders nationally and
internationally by collecting, evaluating, maintaining, and
distributing germplasm derived from wild relatives of wheat. To date,
39 germplasm releases have been made containing new genes for
resistance to such pests as Hessian fly, greenbug, leaf rust, soil-
borne mosaic virus and Russian wheat aphid. Germplasm stocks with
resistance to leaf rust and powdery mildew are under development.
Evaluation of germplasm for important resistance genes was carried out
by Center scientists and cooperating institutions. Center scientists
have introduced antifungal protein genes into the wheat plant to
enhance its survival against pathogen attacks. One transgenic wheat
line gave enhanced resistance to wheat scab, a devastating disease of
wheat. In 1998, the Center filled 20 requests from U.S. wheat breeders
for seed from the germplasm collection and 10 requests for seed of
germplasm releases, as well as 34 requests from international breeders.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1989.
Appropriations were for fiscal year 1989, $100,000; fiscal year 1990,
$99,000; fiscal year 1991, $149,000; fiscal years 1992-1993, $159,000
per year; fiscal year 1994, $196,000; fiscal years 1995-1997, $176,000
each year, and $261,000 for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000. A total
of $2,173,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of nonfederal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The nonfederal funds provided for this grant were as
follows: $609,309 in 1991; $531,167 in 1992; and $730,082 in 1993,
$468,960 in 1994; $563,671 in 1995; $457,840 in 1996; $495,820 in 1997;
$155,279 in 1998 and $452,600 in 1999. Sources include state
appropriations, product sales, and other organizations, such as state
commodity associations.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This research is being conducted at Kansas State University
at the Wheat Genetics Resource Center. The principle investigator also
reports collaborative projects with other departments at Kansas State
University, as well as other institutions in the U.S.
Question. When was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The collection, evaluation, and enhancement of wheat
germplasm is a continual process. Therefore, this project does not have
a defined completion date. Some objectives related to germplasm
evaluation have been completed in fiscal year 1999 and other objectives
which are related to other genetic sources are still in the
developmental stage.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This project was peer reviewed by the institution, Kansas
Agricultural Experiment Station, and was found to address important
issues in the winter wheat industry in Kansas and other states. The
research has been productive based on germplasm releases and peer-
reviewed journal articles and other publications. Additionally, each
annual proposal is reviewed by an agency scientist.
WOOD UTILIZATION RESEARCH
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the wood utilization grant.
Answer. The research includes: developing processes to upgrade wood
products made from small-diameter or low quality trees to higher value
structural applications; catalyzing the formation of new business
enterprises; reducing environmental impact while improving systems for
timber harvesting and fores products manufacturing; increasing the life
of wood in use through preservation and good design; and assisting
industry to be more innovative.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The forest products industry is very fragmented with many
small firms which benefit from publicly-sponsored research. Research
provides the woodworking machinery and tooling industry with the
technology needed to be more competitive in the global economy. Most of
the companies helped by this research are too small to afford in-house
research groups. Shifts in resource availability and increased costs of
the timber that is still available demand more complete utilization in
order for wood to remain competitive.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal is to generate new knowledge that will benefit the
wood industry and the environment. New scientists are trained.
Consumers benefit from better and more environmentally-sound products.
Among the major accomplishments of the eight centers are (1) design of
glue-laminated beams that are reinforced with plastics to save 25-40
percent of the wood fiber that would otherwise be needed, (2)
technology to apply wood preservatives using super fluids to reduce
environmental problems associated with present commercial treatments,
(3) better harvesting systems that are efficient and environmentally
acceptable, (4) increase of wood machining speeds and reduction of saw
blade width to increase productivity and save raw material, (5) a
patented system to apply pressure and vibration to prevent enzymatic
sapstain which degrades hardwood lumber by $70 to $200 million per
year, (6) reduction of quantity of wood bleaching chemicals needed by
wood pulp producers, (7) design and strength of wood furniture frames
to minimize wood requirements, (8) adoption of European frame saw
technology to composite lumber to provide a new raw material source for
industry, (9) improved technology to nondestructively scan standing
trees for mechanical properties of the wood, (10) reduced warp in
structural lumber produced from small-diameter trees, (11)
characterization of the wood products industry, (12) heartwood
formation, (13) recovery of preservatives from treated wood, (14)
installation of a statistical process control system has been installed
in one sawmill with impressive cost savings, and (15) development of
cost effective and environmentally-friendly processes for removing high
value chemicals from bark.
Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1985, $3,000,000; fiscal years 1986 through 1989,
$2,852,000 per year; fiscal year 1990, $2,816,000; fiscal years 1991
and 1992, $2,852,000 per year; fiscal year 1993, $4,153,000; fiscal
year 1994, $4,176,000; fiscal years 1995 and 1996, $3,758,000 per year;
fiscal years 1997 and 1998, $3,536,000 per year; fiscal year 1999,
$5,136,000, which provided a half million increase for the six existing
centers, and $1,000,000 for the two new centers; and $5,136,000 in
fiscal year 2000, which provided $577,000 to establish a new center in
Alaska. Total appropriations are $56,117,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The following are non-federal funds provided by state:
--Mississippi State University non-federal funds were: State
appropriations, $2,498,800, $2,178,725, $2,353,225, $2,331,691,
$2,778,535, $2,582,617, $2,543,017, and $2,717,448 for 1991,
1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999,
respectively. In addition, industrial funds averaged $876,057
for the 5 years from 1995 to 1999 in support of the Mississippi
Forest Products Laboratory.
--Oregon State University state appropriations were: $1,337,962,
$1,394,304, $1,256,750, $1,252,750, $1,417,755, $1,117,000,
$1,100,000, $1,352,000, and $1,337,000 for 1991, 1992,1993,
1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, respectively. Estimated
non-public support was $731,000 this year.
--Michigan State University non-federal contributions were $605,000,
$590,000, and $700,000 for 1997, 1998, and 1999, respectively.
--Three new locations were added in 1994: University of Minnesota-
Duluth non-federal match was $590,000, $550,000, $560,000,
$371,930, $307,532, and $510, 939 for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997,
1998, and 1999, respectively.
--North Carolina State University was $126,000, $165,000, $135,000,
$163,216, $323,134, and $518,258 for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997,
1998, and 1999, respectively.
--University of Maine was $600,000, $445,723, $459,100, $477,464,
$526,210, and $148,032 for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and
1999, respectively.
--Two new centers were added in 1999: The University of Tennessee
non-federal funds for 1999 were $150,987. The consortium of the
Universities of Idaho and Montana and Washington State
University non-federal funds for 1999 were $305,000.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. There are nine locations. The initial three--Oregon State
University, Mississippi State University, and Michigan State
University--were joined by the University of Minnesota-Duluth, North
Carolina State University, and the University of Maine in fiscal year
1994. In 1999, they were joined by a center at the University of
Tennessee, and a second center at the University of Idaho, which
includes a consortium of Idaho, Montana, and Washington State. In 2000,
funds for a wood utilization center in Alaska were appropriated. This
center is just getting organized now.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objective was to build and maintain three
strong regional centers of wood utilization research. These centers
have been established, and six more centers have been added. Projects
begun in 1999 will be completed by 2003.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. On site reviews of centers are conducted on a rotating
basis. Each center's plans are reviewed yearly or more frequently.
Progress reports are reviewed yearly. Center directors met together for
joint planning in June 1996 and in February 1999. Centers all have
advisory committees or research committees which meet periodically.
CSREES conducts informal on-site reviews periodically. The Minnesota
and Oregon sites were visited in 1996, and the North Carolina site was
visited in 1997. Oregon State was visited in 1998. A Departmental panel
reviewed the original three centers in 1992 and 1993. At that time, the
original objectives were broadened to address environmental concerns.
The centers are helping industry meet environmental objectives by
conducting research leading to sustained timber production; extending
the timber supply through improved processing; developing new
structural applications for wood; and developing wood extractives to
substitute for pesticides, preservatives, and adhesives.
WOOL RESEARCH
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the wool research grant.
Answer. The overall goals for this research are to develop
objective measures of wool, mohair, cashmere and other animal fibers to
improve the quality of wool products while enhancing the profitability
of the U.S. sheep and Angora goat industries. Specific objectives
include: develop and evaluate measurement techniques for rapid
objective evaluation of wool, mohair, cashmere and other animal fibers;
increase the use of objective measurements to increase fiber
production, quality and income to producers, and increase consumer
acceptance of fabrics made from these fibers. The fiscal year 1999
grants terminate between August 2000 and June 2001. The 2000 grant
proposals will soon be requested by the agency. All grants are reviewed
for relevance to industry needs and undergo scientific peer review.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. Collaboration exists among researchers in Texas, Wyoming
and Montana associated with this grant and other federal, university
and industry scientists to assure responsiveness to the needs of those
involved in wool and mohair production, marketing and processing. The
sheep and goat industries and the principal researchers believe that
this research to be of national, regional and local need. The research
on wool, conducted by means of this grant, represents the only research
efforts in the U.S. focused on improving the efficiency of measuring
and assuring wool, mohair and cashmere quality for garments made from
these fibers.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The overall goal for this research is to develop objective
measures of wool, mohair, cashmere and other animal fibers with a focus
on improving the efficiency of determining the quality of products made
from these fibers while enhancing the profitability of the sheep and
Angora goat industries. Research accomplishments included the
development of rapid and inexpensive measurements of fiber diameter,
distribution of animal fibers, and other fiber properties such as fiber
length and color. Each of these properties are very important for
grading and processing to determine ultimate softness, durability, dye
characteristics, comfort, and garment price. Within the past year,
evaluation of laser and near-infrared spectroscopy techniques have been
completed by the three cooperators in this project in collaboration
with Yocom-McColl Testing Labs, the main animal fiber testing lab in
the United States. Two of the principal investigators authored an
article in the American Society for Testing and Materials on standard
methods of test for these instruments that are now in the final stages
of acceptance by the Society, and therefore, the U.S. textile industry.
In part, due to our efforts of this grant, all animal fibers tested for
fiber diameter distribution by this commercial laboratory are now
tested using one or the other of these new instruments. This has
resulted in labor savings, thereby a reduction in the price for some
associated fiber tests. Producers, traders, and processors now receive
more accurate fiber data at reduced cost and with shorter turnaround
times. Because this form of testing is also recognized by the
international textile community, U.S. animal fibers are now more
readily accepted and accessible as international commodities.
Additional instruments, primarily for measuring length and strength,
have also been evaluated with the ultimate objective of better
describing domestic wool that will eventually permit electronic trading
of animal fibers. These measurements impact the efficiency of the sheep
and Angora goat industries, the effectiveness of monitoring the quality
and consistency of imported products, and the satisfaction of buyers of
wool, mohair and cashmere textiles. Other experiments aimed at
enhancing our ability to establish the value of specialty animal fibers
were successfully completed and reported for mohair, cashmere and other
fibers. Experiments were also conducted to identify more productive
rams and billie goats; to select for finer and more valuable mohair in
Angora goats; to establish the genetic, nutrition, and management
requirements for the concurrent production of lean lamb meat and high
quality wool; and to demonstrate the economic advantages to producers
of skirting and classing their raw wool prior to marketing. Research
and education efforts have kept U.S. processors and producers current
on the status of the wool markets world wide. It is important that the
U.S. producers of wool, mohair, and cashmere are competitive in the
world market and that consumers are assured high quality textiles.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from appropriated funds in the
amount of $150,000 per year for fiscal years 1984-1985; $142,000 per
year for fiscal years 1986-1989; $144,000 for fiscal year 1990;
$198,000 for fiscal year 1991; and $250,000 per year for fiscal years
1992-1993; $235,000 for fiscal year 1994; $212,000 per year for fiscal
years 1995-1997; and $300,000 per year for fiscal years 1998-2000. A
total of $3,481,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $150,913 state appropriations, $11,800 product sales,
$5,817 industry, and $3,556 miscellaneous in 1991; $111,394 state
appropriations, $25,451 product sales, $41,442 industry contributions
and $3,068 miscellaneous in 1992; $152,699 state appropriations,
$39,443 product sales, $40,804 industry contributions and $3,556
miscellaneous in 1993; $150,094 state appropriations, $35,284 product
sales, $36,484 industry contributions and $3,556 miscellaneous in 1994;
$67,345 state appropriations, $10,000 product sales, and $34,325
industry contributions in 1995; $39,033 non-federal support in 1996;
$174,486 non-federal support in 1997; $200,307 state appropriations and
$13,000 industry contributions in 1998; and $202,854 state
appropriations, $14,385 industry contributions, and $34,000
miscellaneous in 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research is in progress at the Texas A&M University,
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station at San Angelo, the University of
Wyoming at Laramie, and Montana State University at Bozeman.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
Answer. The original objectives to improve the efficiency and
profitability of wool, mohair and cashmere production and marketing are
still valid and subject to further research.. Specific objectives for
individual laboratories and experiments are continually revised to
reflect the changing research priorities for the wool, mohair, and
cashmere industries and to satisfy consumer demands for products from
these fibers. It is anticipated that current research will be completed
by fiscal year 2005.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. An external review of the overall wool research program was
conducted in 1998 in Las Cruces, New Mexico by a team consisting of
industry experts and peers from the scientific community. The review
team concluded that the program was very productive and beneficial to
the United States wool, mohair, and cashmere producers as well as the
allied fiber industries. Research achievements, noted by the review
team, included program input for testing methods and standards used to
buy and sell wool for international trade.
In addition to the program review, grant proposals are annually
reviewed and the research facilities are periodically visited. The
principal investigators meet annually to evaluate progress and re-
evaluate research priorities according to industry needs. Because the
research encompassed in this grant is a component of a regional
research project, accomplishments are reported annually to scientific
peers and representatives from the sheep, goat, wool, mohair, and
cashmere industries. In addition, the overall regional research project
is peer reviewed every third year.
RESEARCH FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION PROJECTS
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AMERICAN PACIFIC
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Agricultural Development in the American Pacific
program.
Answer. The Agricultural Development in the American Pacific (ADAP)
is a primary means for land-grant research, extension, and instruction
programs of the five participating institutions of American Samoa
Community College, College of Micronesia, Northern Marianas College,
University of Guam, and University of Hawaii, to collaborate and
cooperate to enhance their impact on Pacific tropical agriculture and
communities. ADAP is a mechanism to address common regional client-
based issues while maintaining cultural, rural, economic, and
environmental integrity. This research grant is awarded
noncompetitively to a program planned and approved by the five involved
land-grant institutions.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes the five participating
institutions are geographically dispersed yet facing many similar
issues which can best be served through extensive networking and
communication. ADAP facilitates communications and seeks to raise
levels of academic achievement and improve the quality of education.
ADAP's most unique feature is that twice each year it brings together
the five Deans/Directors to discuss agriculture and human resources
issues facing isolated, tropical ecosystems in the Pacific, and to plan
and implement activities to address those issues. Priorities are
categorized in three areas: sustainable systems, collaborations/
partnerships, and communication systems. Activities range from joint
and collaborative efforts to overcome taro leaf blight in the Pacific,
to seeking recognition of Pacific tropical agriculture by the National
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. ADAP's goals are to develop human resources within the
institutions, to manage more effectively agricultural programs within
and among the institutions, and to focus available resources on
critical agricultural issues of the Pacific. Ongoing projects include
animal health surveys, livestock waste management, dietary guidelines
for Pacific foods, youth-at-risk assessment, artificial insemination
demonstration/education, and market information collaboration with
``state'' Departments of Agriculture. ADAP is now working jointly with
the 22-nation Secretariat of the Pacific Community in developing a
paraveterinary program. This program will use distance learning and
site visits to train students from the cooperating nations and
territories in animal health. This is a critical need for the Pacific
region. Both ADAP and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community will
contribute money as well as skilled personnel to assist in this
project. In another regional cooperative effort, ADAP led a retreat for
strategic planning among the ``state'' and national Departments of
Agriculture in the Pacific region in July 1999. That retreat identified
food insecurity as a major issue for Pacific island nations, and ADAP
is formulating a forum in collaboration with the Secretariat of the
Pacific Community to address the issue.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated, by fiscal year, through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. This work was funded for seven years with an annual
appropriation of $650,000 to the former Extension Service. In fiscal
year 1994, an appropriation of $608,000 was made to CSREES to continue
the ADAP program. In fiscal year 1995 the appropriation was $527,000.
The fiscal years 1996 and through 2000 appropriations were $564,000
each year. The appropriation total to CSREES is $3,955,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-federal funds are not provided. Unspecified in-kind
support, such as facilities, equipment, and administrative support, are
provided by each institution and, in some specific projects, by non-
ADAP collaborating institutions.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This work is being carried out by American Samoa Community
College, College of Micronesia, Northern Marianas College, University
of Guam, and the University of Hawaii.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The ADAP program has been achieving original program
objectives, particularly in the areas of improvement in institutional
capacity and communications. It is anticipated that an additional 5 to
10 years will be needed to fully achieve collaborative integration of
the American Pacific land-grant programs.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. A formal review of the ADAP program was conduted July 1-10,
1997, and included visits by review team members to American Samoa
Community College, College of Micronesia, Northern Marianas College,
University of Guam, and University of Hawaii. ADAP incorporated review
recommendations in preparing and adopting a new five-year 1997
strategic plan. An agency specialist conducts a merit review of the
proposals submitted in support of the appropriation annually. In a
review of the April 1999 proposal, progress was judged satisfactory.
AGRICULTURAL WASTE UTILIZATION, WEST VIRGINIA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Agricultural Waste Management, West Virginia
grant.
Answer. The West Virginia Department of Agriculture is conducting a
project to validate the applicability and effectiveness of anaerobic
filtration for treating municipal and agricultural wastes. POWER
anaerobic filtration is a leading-edge technology specifically
developed to biologically recover nutrients and energy from organic
waste streams and produce an effluent which meets discharge permit
requirements.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The current need for this technology is local, national,
and international. The beneficiaries of this technology will be both
the people and the environment anywhere in the world where problems of
food, fertilizer, and energy shortages are currently in conflict with
the preservation of environmental quality. The direct benefits include
enhanced and expanded waste water capacity, creation of new jobs, and
revenue from by-products and water quality improvement.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal was to determine the applicability of
anaerobic digestion to convert organic waste materials to energy in the
form of biogas, thereby reducing the amount of organic matter for
disposal. The goal will go beyond the testing of waste materials in the
digester and proceed with a program to compare the microbiological
loading of rivers, where known environmental pollution is measurable,
and where the total bacterial concentration in the rivers could be
determined in real-time with a bioprobe. Several demonstration tests
have been conducted on municipal solid waste, municipal sludge, poultry
mortality and poultry litter. These demonstrations have validated the
applicability of this technology to a waste stream formulated to reduce
measurable river and stream pollution.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1998 was $360,000; fiscal year
1999 was $250,000; and fiscal year 2000 was $425,000. A total of
$1,035,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-Federal funds are not being expended.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is conducted at Moorefield, West Virginia and West
Virginia State College, Charleston, West Virginia.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date of the original objectives
is June 30, 2000. These objectives are within the original schedule.
The additional objectives should be completed by June 30, 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. An on-site evaluation of the project was conducted in
January 2000. The pilot scale digester has been operating continuously
since 1995, treating a variety of municipal and agricultural wastes. In
1999 it has primarily been used to treat poultry litter and poultry
mortalities. The components of the primary digester are: mix tank,
holding tank, grit removal trap, feed tank, insulated digester with
mixing capability, screen separator for the effluent, biogas treatment
to remove impurities, engine unit that runs on biogas, and a computer
that controls the mixing and feeding of the digester. In June 1999 an
anaerobic filtration unit was added to further treat the effluent of
the primary digester. The anaerobic filtration unit operates at
approximately 100 degrees Fahrenheit, while the primary digester
operates at 130 degrees Fahrenheit. The anaerobic filtration unit is
filled with pieces of plastic pipe to provide additional surface area
for the bacteria to grow upon and thereby converting more of the
organics into biogas. Data on treatment efficiencies for both digesters
have been collected. The samples collected are analyzed at the
laboratories of the West Virginia Department of Agriculture in
Moorefield, WV. The typical analyses consists of: total solids,
volatile solids, volatile fatty acids, total kjeldahl nitrogen,
phosphorus, pH, and fecal coliform. The treated effluent is applied
daily to nearby pasture land. The separated solids are collected and
sent to West Virginia State College for use in field studies to
determine plant growth response to the nutrients.
NATIONAL ALTERNATIVE FUELS LABORATORY
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the National Alternative Fuels Laboratory (NAFL)
grant.
Answer. Through a nationally-marketed collaboration program in
which the NAFL matches about half of its USDA funding with nonfederal
money to work on industry-relevant research, NAFL staff have (1)
developed a U.S. Federal Aviation Administration-certified lead-free
ethanol- and biodiesel-containing alternative to leaded aviation
gasoline that should be commercially available at Midwest airports by
March 2000, (2) resolved ethanol-in-gasoline performance and
environmental issues to accelerate the use of ethanol, (3) initiated
new biomass fuel developments including a process to produce butanol--a
high octane gasoline additive that helps reduce automobile evaporative
and tailpipe emissions--from agricultural resources, (4) initiated and
coordinated the 27-member Red River Valley Clean Cities Coalition to
increase the number of alternative fuel vehicles in regional public and
private fleets, and (5) built E85 refueling sites in North Dakota.
Question. According to the research proposal or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. As stated by former CIA director R. James Woolsey, our
nation needs to develop commercially viable alternatives to fossil
fuels to ensure energy security, improve air quality, and provide
employment. It is crucial to national security and economic development
that these new fuels are accurately represented in the marketplace and
given an opportunity to compete fairly with traditional fossil fuels.
The NAFL provides unbiased scientific data on fuel performance and
environmental effects. Regional need for the research derives from the
need to support regional agriculture and associated industries through
(1) development of new biomass fuel industries based on new crops and
conventional crop residues and (2) development of economic uses for
agricultural co-products.
Question. What was the original goal of this research, and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The primary original goal was to develop a database of at-
the-pump-sampled conventional, reformulated, and alternative
transportation fuels sold in the upper Midwest and throughout the U.S.
to enable comparison of current and historical fuels on the basis of
chemical and physical properties. This fuels database is being expanded
to include how gasoline chemistry affects air quality and fuel
performance. Another original goal was to provide information on
conversion of crop residues, agriculture processing wastes, high-
cellulose-content municipal wastes, and other biomass materials to
alternative fuels. The NAFL program supported North Dakota's first two
public E85 refueling sites, initiated an ongoing industry-supported
effort to develop and build a new ag co-product-to-lactic acid plant in
the Grand Forks region--lactic acid is a building block for new bio-
based polymers--helped resolve ethanol blend evaporative emissions
issues and E85 engine cold-start problems, and initiated an ongoing
industry collaboration to demonstrate the viability of producing and
utilizing biomass-based butanol, a clean-burning gasoline and diesel
fuel additive.
Question. How long has this work been underway, and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The NAFL work began in fiscal year 1991 and was, in part,
sponsored by this grant. USDA appropriations in fiscal year 1991
through fiscal year 1993 were $250,000 per year. Later awards were
$235,000 in fiscal year 1994, $204,000 in fiscal year 1995, and
$218,000 per year in fiscal years 1996 through 2000. A total of
$2,279,000 has been appropriated over 10 years.
Question. What is the source and amount of nonfederal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. To date in fiscal year 1999, $85,000 in nonfederal
collaborative funding has been secured from the American Coalition for
Ethanol, the South Dakota Corn Utilization Council, and the American
Lung Association of Minnesota. A total of $1,160,000 in nonfederal
funds has been secured for performance of NAFL program objectives over
the duration of this grant. During fiscal year 1991 through fiscal year
1993, nonfederal funding from the State of Illinois totaled $630,000.
For fiscal year 1994, nonfederal funding of $105,000 was secured from
the American Corn Growers' Association, the Renewable Fuels
Association, and others. For fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998,
nonfederal funding totals of $50,000, $60,000, $140,000, and $90,000,
respectively, were secured from corn grower organizations, state
agriculture departments, alternative fuels technology companies, and
regional economic development agencies.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work is performed at the University of North Dakota
Energy & Environmental Research Center--EERC--in Grand Forks. The EERC
is a research, development, demonstration, and commercialization
facility that employs about 200 scientists, engineers, and support
personnel.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The completion date for the original objectives was April
30, 1992. The objectives were met. The work was then expanded to
include partnerships with industry and agriculture. The NAFL has been
established as a center of expertise for development and demonstration
of bio-based fuels, investigating fuel chemistry effects on engine
performance and air quality, dissemination of accurate and objective
information regarding ethanol in gasoline, and ethanol feedstock
assessment and process development. Additional tasks include
commercializing an ethanol-based aviation gasoline, implementing
industry collaborations to produce lactic acid and butanol from
regional agricultural resources, and administering the Red River Valley
Clean Cities Coalition. These tasks should be completed by 2002.
Question. What was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation.
Answer. In June 1998, the USDA conducted an on-site evaluation, and
the NAFL program was given a very favorable review. The program
continues to be a model for federal-private sector collaborations.
Personnel have continued to meet or exceed program objectives detailed
at the initiation of each annual performance period.
ANIMAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, OKLAHOMA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Animal Waste Management, Oklahoma grant.
Answer. This research project is designed to develop sustainable,
environmentally safe, and ecologically-sound best management principles
and practices for beneficial animal waste applications for ``High
Plains Agriculture'' in support of rural economic development through a
Federal-state-local partnership. Emphasis will be placed on the rapidly
expanding hog industry in the semiarid region, but information gained
will also be applicable to the beef and dairy industries which play
major roles in agriculture production in the region. .
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The Oklahoma Panhandle region and contiguous counties in
the states of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico and Texas generated $2.9
billion in sales of agricultural products in 1997. The Oklahoma
Panhandle is the most productive agricultural region in the state with
agricultural receipts in excess of $937 million, which represents 31
percent of the receipts in the region. The majority of sales are
related to livestock production and the rapid expansion of the hog
industry in this semiarid region has only strengthened that position.
Oklahoma has moved to 9th in position in the U.S. for swine sales and
Texas County, has risen to 3rd nationally with nearly $200 million in
swine sales from a position of 645th in 1992. The rapidly expanding
swine industry was projected to add $650 million in pork and value
added products in Oklahoma in 1997 with the slaughter and processing of
over 4 million hogs per year. The semiarid agro-ecosystem is unique
with climatic conditions consisting of low rainfall that promotes both
dryland and irrigated agricultural practices; extremes in high and low
temperatures; soils characterized with alkaline pH, low in organic
matter, and high in calcium carbonate. This unique agro-ecosystem makes
information gained from more humid environments inapplicable.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to develop best
management practices that will protect ground water supplies from
pollution of nutrients, salts, and pathogens; maintain air quality; and
minimize odors derived from the entire hog-house, lagoon, land-
application, soil-cropping and or rangeland production system, thus
maintaining the quality of life in the rural sector. Field work has
been initiated and initial work shows a positive response to animal
waste applications. Initial studies of ammonia loss from applications
indicate there can be significant losses following land applications.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998
and the appropriation for fiscal years 1998, 1999 and 2000 is $250,000
per year. A total of $750,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Non-federal funding from state and industry totals
$659,000.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This work has been initiated at The Oklahoma Panhandle
Research and Extension Center located in Goodwell, Oklahoma. Further
work will continue to be done at this site. The Center will provide the
land area and a portion of the facilities and equipment necessary to
conduct the major portion of the study. Other study sites have
developed on private land in cooperation with swine operations in the
panhandle region.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original completion date was February 29, 2000. To
document the results for these objectives more than one growing season
will be needed. Completion of these objectives and additional
objectives related to these will be February 28, 2003.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This project was evaluated at the end of December 1999 when
the summary report of the 1998-99 accomplishments was submitted. To
date seven proceedings or abstracts have been published in national or
regional forums. Results to date indicate: (1) Significant amounts of
ammonia will be volatilized, lost as a gas, almost immediately
following effluent application to bare soils, (2) Swine effluent
applications to corn, sorghum and forages demonstrate that it is an
acceptable method to supply nutrients for crop production, and (3)
There is a significant increase in soil phosphorus levels from
application of swine lagoon sludge to soil. This and other important
technology was transferred at the High Plains Animal Water Management
Conference, hosted in conjunction with the Oklahoma Panhandle Research
and Extension Center, at Goodwell, Oklahoma. Those in attendance
included the general public, producers, governmental officials,
extension personnel and researchers from Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas,
New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.
BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, MISSISSIPPI
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the Biotechnology Research Grant, Mississippi.
Answer. The Agency has requested Alcorn State University to submit
a grant proposal that has not yet been received. This is a new special
grant for which there have been no previous awards.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The overall purpose of this project is to establish a
Biotechnology Center at Alcorn State University that will focus on
plant biotechnology research geared toward small farmers in
Mississippi. Emphasis will be placed on improving the productivity and
efficiency of crops and plants grown by small farmers in order to
improve profitability and ensure long-term viability.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the research is to enhance Alcorn State
University's research efforts in biotechnology through genetic
improvement research utilizing biotechnology techniques and to improve
the livelihood and viability of limited-resource producers in
Mississippi and the Southeast.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Preliminary work funded by the State has been underway for
approximately six years. This is a new special grant and $425,000 has
been appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. State funds and a $150,000 grant from the World Bank in
fiscal year 1996 have supported this work in previous years.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being conducted at Alcorn State University,
Lorman, Mississippi, and at field locations in Preston and Mound Bayou,
Mississippi.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The principal investigator anticipates completing the
original objectives of the project in two years. Additional or related
objectives have not been specifically identified at this time.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. As a new special grant for which a proposal has not yet
been received, this project has not yet been evaluated. A merit review
panel will be convened to evaluate the project upon receipt of a
proposal for fiscal year 2000.
CENTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, IOWA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the Center for Agriculture and Rural Development
program.
Answer. The research monitors the final form and implementation of
the Uruguay Round Agreement and evaluates its impacts on global trade
and implications for U.S. agriculture.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. As the Uruguay Round--UR--Agreement implementation
proceeds, researchers will monitor the development of these policy
changes and analyze the likely impacts of these decisions with emphasis
on obtaining differential impacts for developing economies, developed
economies and those in transition. Researchers will also explore
possible directions for the next Round or Mini-round of the World Trade
Organization.
The original goal is to assess and evaluate various proposals
affecting agricultural trade, to provide analytical support to the
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and to provide information to
farmers and agribusiness firms on the competitive implications of trade
agreements. Theoretical studies and empirical and descriptive analyses
of policy issues and technical problems pertaining to the Uruguay round
of negotiations were completed and provided to negotiators and the
agribusiness community. Knowledge developed in this phase is now being
used to monitor the effects of the Uruguay Round Agricultural
Agreement--URA.
This grant supports six projects focusing on URA and the World
Trade Organization--WTO--monitoring and implementation problems;
implications of the URA and WTO for Eastern Europe, Baltic, and the
Newly Independent States; development of a model to assess the North
American Free Trade Agreement and its linkages with the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; trade implications of U.S. food and
development aid in developing countries; integration of China into
world agricultural markets; and special projects as requested for the
U.S. Trade Representative's office. Major emphasis is placed on
developing and improving international livestock and grain sector
models.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated, by fiscal year, through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. This research program was initiated in fiscal year 1989.
Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal
year 1989, $750,000; fiscal years 1990 and 1991, $741,000 per year;
fiscal years 1992-1993, $750,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $705,000;
fiscal year 1995, $612,000; fiscal year 1996, $655,000; and fiscal
years 1997 through 1999, $355,000; fiscal year 2000, $355,000. A total
of $7,124,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $111,210 State appropriations and $175,616
miscellaneous for a total of $286,826 in 1991; $113,779 State
appropriations and $173,117 miscellaneous for a total of $286,896 in
1992; $120,138 State appropriations and $164,707 miscellaneous for a
total of $284,845 in 1993; $161,000 State and $30,000 miscellaneous for
a total of $191,000 in 1995; $70,000 State appropriations and $44,000
miscellaneous for a total of $114,000 in 1996; $60,325 in State
appropriations and $61,5000 in miscellaneous funds for a total of
$121,825 in 1997; and $72,000 in State appropriations and $75,000 in
miscellaneous funds for a total of $147,000 in 1999.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The research program is carried out by the Center for
Agriculture and Rural Development at Iowa State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objectives of the project envisioned the
development of models capable of providing guidance to policymakers,
researchers, and farmers and others of the impact of agricultural trade
proposals on the U.S. agricultural sector. As such the objectives are
on-going.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. We have conducted no formal evaluations; however, each
annual proposal is peer reviewed for relevance and scientific merit.
Also, an informal evaluation of this project takes place as a part of
each annual project review and approval process.
CENTER FOR INNOVATIVE FOOD TECHNOLOGY, OHIO
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Center for Innovative Food Technology Grant.
Answer. Funds from the fiscal year 1999 grant are supporting
research projects to (1) develop techniques for applying powdered
material onto snack foods and shredded cheeses, (2) assess the
usefulness of artificial intelligence to predict finished product
quality from incoming ingredient attributes in vegetable and meat
processing applications, (3) develop methods to convert the waste
product whey from dairy operations into a saleable product, (4) refine
the techniques for producing extended shelf life milk products in PET
containers, and (5) evaluate applications for real time process control
in the milling industry using Near Infrared reflectance systems. Fiscal
year 1999 funds are supporting research from March.1999 through
February 29, 2000. A proposal in support of the fiscal year 2000
appropriation will be requested.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes the value-added food
processing industry is the largest industry in Midwestern states,
including Ohio where the industry contributes over $17 billion to the
annual economy. From an economic development point of view, processing
and adding value to crops grown within a region is the largest possible
stimulus to that region's total economic product. This program aims to
partner with and encourage small and medium sized companies to
undertake innovative research that might otherwise not be undertaken
due to risk aversion and limited financial resources for research and
development in these companies. The principal researcher believes that,
although the initial impact of this research will be regional, the
recipient organization of this grant is part of a technology transfer
network and proactively seeks opportunities to deploy technologies
developed through this research to the food industry on a national
basis.
Question. What was the original goal of the research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the research was to develop innovative
processing techniques to increase food safety and quality or reduce
processing costs. The coatings project has developed methods to extend
product shelf life while reducing costs, and the neural network project
has developed a model for predicting the harvesting time that will
optimize product quality and economic return to the grower, processor,
and consumer. The dairy project has developed a method that allows
fluid milk processors to lower their costs. The milling project has
developed methods for improving quality of milled flours by developing
improved process control systems.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1995.
The project received appropriations of $181,000 in fiscal years 1995
through 1997, $281,000 in fiscal year 1998, and $381,000 each in fiscal
years 1999 and 2000. A total of $1,586,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year 2000?
Answer. In fiscal year 1995, non-federal funds included $26,000
from state funds and $70,000 from industry memberships. In fiscal year
1996, non-federal funds included $26,000 in state funds and $80,000 in
industry funds. In fiscal year 1997, non-federal funds included $35,000
in state funds and $95,000 in industry memberships. In 1998, $35,000 in
state funds and $105,000 in private industry memberships contributed to
the support of the project. In 1999, $62,000 in State of Ohio funds,
and $115,000 from private industry were used to support the project.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted in the laboratories of the Ohio
State University and at various participating companies in Ohio,
Illinois, and Pennsylvania.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
Answer. The principal investigator anticipates that some projects
supported by the fiscal year 2000 grant will be completed by February
28, 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of the
proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual basis.
The last review of the proposal was conducted on April 15, 1999. At
that time, the agency science specialist believed that the projects
addressed issues relevant to food manufacturing, were scientifically
sound, and that satisfactory progress was being demonstrated using
previously awarded grant funds.
CENTER FOR NORTH AMERICAN STUDIES, TEXAS
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the Center for North American Studies program.
Answer. The purpose of this grant is to develop linkages with
educational and other institutions in Mexico and Canada in order to
share data and faculty, conduct research identifying trade
opportunities and marketing problems, conduct policy analyses, and
develop a broad range of training programs preparing agricultural firms
for international marketing opportunities. The research proposal was
peer reviewed at the university prior to submission to CSREES.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The program director believes that citizens of the United
States, Mexico and Canada have some similar concerns about the impact
of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and that new, innovative
approaches involving international cooperation are needed to assess and
evaluate these issues. Research and training are needed to provide
information to evaluate alternatives for expanding U.S. exports and to
resolve potential social, economic, and environmental conflicts.
Question. What was the original goal of this research, and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal is to promote strong agricultural ties among the
three North American countries, foster greater cooperation in resolving
critical agricultural issues of common interest, and ensure the
continued competitiveness of U.S. agriculture. Recent research results
include an investigation of technical trade barriers; a study of the
impact of El Nino and La Nina on fruit and vegetable production;
impacts of the North American Free Trade Agreement on livestock, meat,
feed, fruit and vegetable trade; a range management watershed study
along both sides of the Rio Grande River; and competitive response of
Texas food marketers to the Agreement. A new publication series was
started in June 1998, and four research papers were published. Recent
training and education programs include a televideo conference on
International Marketing Opportunities for the 21st Century with
participants in five states; and 37 seminars/workshops for producers
and agribusinesses to increase the international capacity of U.S. firms
was attended by over 2,600 people in 1998. Collaborative work included
a workshop on International Strategic Alliances workshop developed
jointly with a Mexican and a Canadian university; an expanded database
on Mexican agriculture; and a video conference for a Mexican
agribusiness audience.
Question. How long has this work been underway, and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Work supported by this grant began with an appropriation of
$94,000 in fiscal year 1994; $81,000 in 1995; and $87,000 for 1996
through 2000. A total of $610,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and derived from the State of Texas
for salaries and benefits. Amounts provided for this grant are as
follows: $39,000 State appropriations in fiscal year 1994; $54,000 in
1995; $60,000 per year in 1996 and 1997; $84,500 in 1998; and $80,000
in 1999.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The program is being carried out at Texas A&M University
through the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station in collaboration with
other segments of the Texas A&M University System and Louisiana State
University Agricultural Center.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1994 was for a period of 12
months. The current phase of the program will be completed in the year
2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation.
Answer. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in January
1999 and concluded that ``the project has sound objectives and
procedures for helping U.S. firms to be successful in North American
markets for agricultural products, thereby achieving CSREES goals of a
highly competitive agricultural production system and enhanced economic
opportunity for Americans.'' The principal investigator is well
recognized for his leadership in the area of international trade.
CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH, FLORIDA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Climate Change Research grant.
Answer. CSREES requested the University to submit a grant proposal
which has not yet been received. Funds have not previously been
appropriated for this research.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
investigator, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The need for this research will be described upon receipt
of a formal project proposal.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The research is not yet underway.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2000
with an appropriation of $170,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Information on non-federal funds and sources is not
available.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. In the absence of a research proposal, location of the
research can not be determined.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This will be determined upon receipt of an acceptable
research proposal.
COTTON RESEARCH, TEXAS
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Cotton Research, Texas, grant.
Answer. CSREES has requested the university to submit a grant
proposal for fiscal year 2000, that has not yet been received. Texas
A&M and Texas Tech Universities have developed an integrated research
effort to address cotton production issues using a comprehensive
approach in order to strengthen the cotton industry in the high plains.
Priority productions and marketing issues will be studied.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The proposed project is expected to help support a broad
based program to address priority research needs of cotton grown on the
Texas high plain. The specific issues will include production,
processing, marketing, and utilization.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this project is to improve cotton production in
West Texas and expand the demand for cotton grown in the area.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998.
The appropriation for fiscal years 1998-1999 is $200,000 per year, and
$170,000 for fiscal year 2000. A total of $570,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds are from the State of Texas and
provide salaries and benefits for experiment station employees. Funds
supporting the project were $156,000 in fiscal year 1998 and $149,000
in 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work will be conducted at the Texas A&M University
Research and Extension Center, Lubbock and Texas Technical University
Campus.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The principal investigators anticipate the developmental
phase of this project, which will establish priorities and provide
planning for a long-term comprehensive program, should be completed in
fiscal year 2004.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project received a comprehensive review and evaluation
at its inspection by Texas A&M and Texas Tech Universities and the
agency National Program Leader. It will be evaluated annually
throughout its lifetime.
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT/MISSISSIPPI VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Curriculum Development and Strengthening-
Mississippi Valley State University grant.
Answer. Funds were used to strengthen academic programs, including
accreditation and re-accreditation. Of the ten programs eligible for
accreditation, nine have been accredited. Assessment of the criteria
has begun for the remaining eligible program. Academic programs have
been broadened to include more agriculture-related courses consistent
with the needs of students from the Mississippi Delta, students from
other parts of the State, as well as out-of-state students. Curriculum
additions have had a positive impact on student enrollment. Courses
continue to be modified to reflect the needs of graduates as well as
employers in the Mississippi Delta, with particular emphasis on those
areas that employers have the greatest need. The funds continue to
provide enhancements related to other program and administrative
support areas that positively impact program delivery and
administration at Mississippi Valley State University.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
proposal?
Answer. The primary need for this project is to satisfy a local
need. The need is for strengthening university capacity and curriculum
development at Mississippi Valley State University. Degree programs in
Accounting, Mass Communications and Public Administration have been
added since the 1988 plan was developed. The Criminal Justice program
has been developed into a departmental unit with social work in order
to provide for improved administration and academic counseling. A
master's program in Criminal Justice is now offered. The baccalaureate
major in chemistry and the master's program in Elementary Education
have been reinstated.
Question. What was the original goal of this project and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal was to provide funding to strengthen the
academic programs of the university. This funding has strengthened the
fiscal and academic areas of the university. The University's cash flow
and cash availability have remained steady and sufficient all year
long. Student recruitment has improved to show a positive ratio between
applications received and students admitted. Approximately one half of
the applicants are enrolled. Increased quality of instruction and
programs have benefitted students. This is reflected in the higher
graduation rate, increased student enrollment, enriched faculty and
improved community relationship.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. This program was initiated in fiscal year 1987. Grants have
been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal year 1987,
$750,000; fiscal years 1988 and 1989, $625,000 per year; fiscal year
1990, $617,000; fiscal year 1991, $642,000; fiscal years 1992 and 1993,
$668,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $593,000; fiscal year 1995,
$544,000; fiscal years 1996-2000, $583,000 per year. A total of
$8,647,000 was appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Mississippi Valley State University received State and
private funding during the period of this grant. The State figures
provided here are for enhancement funds gained above the University's
standard formula generated funds. The sources and amounts are as
listed:
SOURCE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year State Private Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997............................................................ .............. $168,640 $168,640
1988............................................................ .............. 186,036 186,036
1989............................................................ $68,658 190,258 258,916
1990............................................................ 207,879 369,358 577,237
1991............................................................ 333,263 337,700 670,963
1992............................................................ 349,427 470,220 819,647
1993............................................................ 35,750 358,680 394,430
1994............................................................ 590,890 568,970 1,159,860
1995............................................................ 841,654 530,300 1,371,954
1996............................................................ 1,197,917 590,824 1,788,741
1997............................................................ 309,717 755,629 1,065,346
1998............................................................ 313,738 538,423 852,161
1999............................................................ 909,419 389,812 1,299,231
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. These funds are intended to strengthen programs at
Mississippi Valley State University. The program has been carried out
on the campus at Itta Bena and at off-campus sites in Anguilla and
Greenville and the Greenwood Center since the Spring Semester of 1996.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objectives completion date was June 1992, and
the primary objective of erasing the financial deficit was accomplished
at that time. The university has been operating on a sound financial
basis as of July 1993. Academic program strengthening has progressed
very well. The objectives of the current grant will be completed by
September 30, 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The program staff in the agency conducts an annual
evaluation of reports submitted by the principal investigator. The
evaluation reflects steady enhancement in curriculum development and
improved support for strengthening administrative units. The Department
of Education doubled efforts to seek two new programs at the
undergraduate level in the areas of Special Education and Early
Childhood. The department enhanced the faculty through two fronts-
technology upgrade and scholarship. A number of technology workshops
were provided for faculty in collaboration with the Institute for
Effective Teaching Practice. These workshops were aimed at helping
faculty to incorporate technology into their teaching. In pursuance of
the National Council of Accreditation of Teacher Education--NCATE--
accreditation visit in year 2000, the department undertook a series of
activities aimed at enhancing the teacher education programs as well as
ensuring reaccreditation. These activities included: attending American
Accreditation of Colleges for Teacher Education--AACTE--and NCATE
national meetings, revisiting and reassessing curricular and
programmatic requirements. Core Curriculum has received special
attention during the year. Annual revisions were completed for all core
courses in each discipline. Strong emphasis was placed on Writing
Across the Curriculum. The University Testing Center has undergone
significant growth. Staff development has continued in technology
utilization skills. Since more standardized tests are becoming
computer-based, the Center has developed a plan for increased computer
testing.
DATA INFORMATION SYSTEM
Question. Please provide a description of system development
activities that have been funded.
Answer. CSREES continues to fund activities under contract with a
major information technology firm for the design and development of the
Research, Education, and Economics Information System--REEIS.
Previously funded tasks that have been completed include the conduct of
an inventory of databases targeted for inclusion in REEIS; a
comprehensive assessment of information needs and practices within the
Research, Education, and Economics mission agencies and State partner
institutions; design and development of a Web accessible catalog of
databases identified in the inventory; a comprehensive review of state-
of-the-art information technology systems available for use in
developing the system; and design and development of a REEIS proof-of-
concept prototype that is currently undergoing critical review and
evaluation. An additional task was completed under a separate contract
that provided for an outside expert to conduct a review and evaluation
of Web interfaces to the REEIS Database Catalog. Also, a cooperative
agreement with the University of Arkansas was also established to
provide national leadership in coordinating the efforts a National
Steering Committee charged with guiding the continuing development of
the system. The Committee has met on a regular basis with the next
meeting planned for August, 2000. Currently underway, and critical to
the development of REEIS, is a comprehensive interagency data modeling
effort designed to identify and describe data, data relationships, and
sources of data from across the research, extension, education, and
statistics domains of the Research, Education, and Economics mission
agencies and State partner institutions. This will serve as the basis
for the development of alternative system architectures and the
population of the REEIS prototype with actual data from selected core
databases that are to be included in REEIS. Funding has also been
provided under the REEIS initiative for the design and development of
an Evaluation and Accountability System for Extension--EASE--which has
been targeted for linkage in REEIS.
Question. What is the national, regional or local need for this
activity?
Answer. At present, USDA's Research, Education, and Economics--
REE--mission agencies and their university partners lack a central,
integrated, user-friendly electronic information system capable of
providing access to thousands of programs and projects for which they
are responsible that focus on food, agriculture, natural resources, and
rural development. Such an information system is increasingly needed to
enable the Department and its partners to readily conduct baseline and
ongoing assessments and evaluations of research, education, extension,
and economic programs and projects. In recent years, this need has
become more urgent for several reasons. First, the United States needs
a visionary publicly funded research and development program to produce
essential knowledge and innovations for meeting growing competition in
a global market--which is largely attributable to the expanding
research and development efforts of foreign nations. Second, a
comprehensive information system is needed to serve as a primary
reference source for development of new research and education programs
on such diverse issues as increasing productivity in agriculture and
processing, improving the safety and quality of food, and enhancing the
sustainability of the environment and rural communities. Third,
Federal/State policy makers and administrators are requiring empirical
analyses to account for historical, current, and future use of public
funds to provide a basis for redirecting funds to higher priority
issues. Fourth, the Government Performance and Results Act--GPRA--has
imposed reporting demands which current databases and decentralized
information systems are not prepared to adequately satisfy. It is also
envisioned that REEIS will play a key role in implementation of the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act--AREERA--of
1998. In this regard, REEIS would be well-positioned to:
--Provide linkages for decision making among REE agencies,
--Enable consistent reporting on identical or similar issues,
--Provide the public with understanding of the role and mission of
REE agencies,
--Expand REE's outreach to a broader base of constituencies,
--Provide a better vehicle to facilitate interaction among REE
agencies and their university partners,
--Link commonalities of research, extension, and teaching projects
and programs through a single interface, and
--Foster global interactions.
Additionally, REEIS will serve to expand the Federal partnership by
facilitating coalition-building with other Federal agencies.
Question. What was the original goal of this initiative and what
has been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this initiative was to develop an
information system that provides real-time tracking of research,
extension and education projects and programs; has the capability to
communicate vertically between field, State and Federal locations;
enables the REE agencies and their partners to conduct rapid and
comprehensive policy assessments and program evaluation analysis;
facilitates assessment of technologies and practices employed in
extension, education, economics, and research activities at the field
and/or regional levels; provides clear and transparent public access to
relevant parts of the information; and provides information management
tools to enhance the timeliness and accuracy of REE-wide responses to
inquiries about program objectives and expenditures.
Since launching of the REEIS initiative, substantial system
planning and development work has been completed. Work accomplished
under a series of multi-task contracts with a private sector
information technology firm was instrumental in meeting major
milestones considered to be critical components and a prerequisite to
the design, development, and implementation of REEIS. Major tasks
included the conduct of a comprehensive strategic information audit of
information practices and needs within the REE agencies and partner
institutions; the identification and inventory of major research,
extension, education, and economics/statistics databases maintained or
supported by the REE mission agencies; the design, development, and
preparation of the REEIS Database Catalog Prototype that affords Web
access to the inventory of 38 databases initially identified as
candidates for inclusion in REEIS; the design and evaluation of the Web
interface to the REEIS Database Catalog; a comprehensive review of
state-of-the-art information technology systems available for use in
developing REEIS; and the design and development of a Web accessible
REEIS proof-of-concept prototype.
Plans in fiscal year 2000 include the development and assessment of
alternative system architectures, development and testing of a REEIS
prototype populated with actual data from selected core databases,
updating and maintenance of the Information Systems Technology database
and the REEIS Database Catalog, and initial implementation and
operation of the REEIS system, including training of REEIS users and
technical system operators.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Congress first appropriated $0.4 million for REEIS in
fiscal year 1997 to begin planning its design and development. The
fiscal year 1998 appropriation was $800,000. This was followed by
appropriations of $1.0 million in fiscal year 1999 and $2.0 million in
fiscal year 2000. A total of $2.25 million is requested in fiscal year
2001.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-federal funding does not apply at this time.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Leadership responsibility for REEIS resides within the
CSREES Science and Education Resources Development unit. This provides
for effective linkage within the REEIS platform of the Current Research
Information System, the Food and Agricultural Education Information
System, and other appropriate research, extension, education, and
statistics databases. The REEIS leadership works closely with the four
Research, Education, and Economics mission agencies and the university
system to ensure that primary users as well as key stakeholders are
involved in the REEIS development process. A sizeable effort continues
under contract with a major private sector information technology firm
for the design, development, testing, and implementation of REEIS. One
staff person assigned full time to manage and coordinate agency
contracting activities currently serves as the REEIS technical
information program manager. Plans are to recruit for the positions of
a REEIS Director and a support staff person in fiscal year 2000,
followed by computer and technical information specialists in future
years to operate and maintain the system.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. It is anticipated that REEIS will become operational during
fiscal year 2000. The requested increase for fiscal year 2001 is
required to achieve broad implementation. Included is the need to
conduct ongoing, iterative needs assessments within the mission area
and with its partners to align information system products and services
with strategic information requirements necessary for meeting agency
mission and goals and satisfying GPRA reporting requirements. Updating
and maintenance of technical system assessments, conducting ongoing
information technology evaluations, and enhancements of REEIS user
interfaces will be essential to ensure currency and responsiveness over
the life of the system. The additional funding will allow also for the
enlistment, training, and retention of essential personnel and staff
and provide for the enhancement of several legacy systems and databases
to permit effective inclusion in REEIS.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Progress and accomplishments stemming from the REEIS
initiative have undergone and continue to undergo review and evaluation
by the REE mission agencies, the REEIS National Steering Committee, our
State partner institutions, and outside sources. The most recent
evaluation of the project was conducted in December, 1999 by a
Department-wide information technology review board which approved the
project for continued support as a mission-critical system. Factors
considered in the evaluation included REEIS system objectives, its
support of mission area strategic goals, strategies for managing risk,
the degree of return on investment, and the level of support for the
Secretary's priorities. An earlier evaluation of this project was
conducted at the June, 1999 meeting of the REEIS National Steering
Committee, comprised of representatives of the REE mission agencies,
university partners, and key stakeholders. Committee members were
presented the opportunity to critique the REEIS proof-of-concept
prototype in terms of its potential for responding to primary users,
satisfying primary uses, and meeting priority system requirements. An
interagency REEIS team is in the process of performing technical
evaluations of a series of successive iterations of the prototype. In
May, 1999 a two-day REEIS retreat was held to review project status and
make recommendations as to future tasks for the development and
implementation of the system. Based on participant recommendations, a
comprehensive interagency data modeling effort is underway to identify
and describe in detail data and sources of data that are to be included
in REEIS and which reside within the research, extension, education,
and statistics domains of the Research, Education, and Economics
mission agencies and their State partner institutions. A review by REE
agency policy officials, budget and GPRA staff, national program
leaders, and senior managers of the final set of system requirements
resulting from the needs assessment was completed in February, 1999.
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the geographic information system program.
Answer. The purpose of this program is to promote collaborative and
innovative transfer of systems technologies to state and local
governments and others in the public and private sectors. The current
program is being carried out by the non-profit National Consortium for
Rural Geospatial Innovations in America--NCRGI. The directors and
participants of the Consortium are the sub-contractors who are carrying
out the program by working on agro-environmental problems at the
national, regional, state and neighborhood levels. They represent a
wide spectrum of site-based expertise including six academic
institutions, one regional development authority, and the Southwest
Indian Polytechnic Institute site added by Congress in 1997. This
institutional arrangement has helped fill a role in linking some of the
otherwise disparate efforts of agencies and academic institutions to
apply them in the now seven regions of the country.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that local officials are
facing increasingly complex land management issues that require rapid
access to resource knowledge and databases for decision making. This
project is needed to transfer relevant technology to state and local
governments, including Native American communities whose limited
training budgets and sometimes-isolated location, make it difficult to
use the latest technology. The technology developed by the Consortium
is useful in improving the management of natural resources. While
concentrating on issues related to agriculture, the independent, non-
profit nature of the National Consortium for Rural Geospatial
Innovations in America facilitates linkages across disciplinary and
institutional barriers, and makes it possible to use analyses at the
state and local levels which were initiated at the federal level. While
the early phases of the geographic information system concentrated on
building information systems related to rural, physical, and natural
resources, the current challenge is to integrate human economic, social
and demographic information in order to better understand the
relationship of human communities to the landscape. At the other end of
the spatial scale, the role of the public sector in geographic
information system-based precision farming technologies, data capture,
and information synthesis is the subject of a current study group.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this work was to serve as a pilot
project for the transfer of geographic information systems technology
related to natural resources to local governments.
The Consortium has carried out this function. Economic and
biological data are being presented in various formats to state and
local governments and individuals. Through its 7 regionally distributed
sites, including the new Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute site in
New Mexico, the Consortium has implemented a variety of geographic
systems technologies to local governments--both rural and urban. These
include the recent expansion of transfer of geographic information
technology through various distance education and Internet
technologies. It is anticipated that the fiscal year 2000 grant will
support work under this program through March 2001. The proposal for
this work in 1999 has been received and reviewed.
Question. How long has this work been under way and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1990, $494,000; fiscal year 1991, $747,000; fiscal
years 1992 and 1993, $1,000,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $1,011,000;
fiscal year 1995, $877,000; fiscal year 1996, $939,000; fiscal years
1997 through 1999, $844,000 per year; and fiscal year 2000, $850,000. A
total of $9,450,000 has been appropriated since the beginning of the
program.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. For fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 1997, to date, the
work in this program had $5,009,834 in non-federal support. In fiscal
year 1990, non-federal support was $714,940 consisting of equipment,
databases, and other miscellaneous contributions from foundations,
city, and state governments. In fiscal year 1991, non-federal support
was $25,000 from county government. In fiscal year 1992, non-federal
support was $366,016 from county government, computer companies, and
state governments consisting of equipment, software, facilities, and
miscellaneous support. In fiscal year 1993, non-Federal support was
$713,900 consisting of financial and miscellaneous support from
foundations, county and state governments. In fiscal year 1994, the
non-federal support was $713,643. In fiscal year 1995, the non-federal
support was $987,000. In fiscal year 1996, it was $567,173. It was
$456,582 in fiscal year 1997. In 1998 and 1999, non-federal dollars
exceeded $1,000,000, and it is anticipated that they will again in
2000.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The National Consortium for Rural Geospatial Innovations in
America is administratively centered at the University of Wisconsin-
Madison. The University of Wisconsin-Madison, functioning as the Great
Lakes center, continues a long history of involvement in the
application of this technology at the local level with strong focus on
soils/land-use and the institutional aspects of the integration of a
new technology. The southeastern center in Valdosta, Georgia, in
affiliation with the South Georgia Regional Development Center, has
developed a comprehensive plan of the City of Adel as a model for other
urban centers in the ten-county region. The southwestern center, in
Fayetteville, Arkansas serves several local governments through its
training facilities at the University of Arkansas, basing its technical
approach on expertise and past experiences with the Federally developed
system known as GRASS. They have developed pilot projects for some
local jurisdictions and state level databases, which they have provided
online. Central Washington University focuses on training for state
planning and on three local governments and the Yakima Nation in the
Yakima watershed. The north central center in Grand Forks, North
Dakota, in affiliation with the University of North Dakota, focuses on
relating real time weather data to other spatial attributes. The
University of Wisconsin-Madison, functioning as the Great Lakes and
Administrative center, continues a long history of involvement in the
application of this technology at the local level with strong focus on
soils/land-use and the institutional aspects of the integration of a
new technology. Native American communities are being reached through
the newly-developed Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute
facilities in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Two new sites were added in
fiscal year 99. They are Pennsylvania State University and the GIS
Consortium at Wilkes University and Kings College in Pennsylvania.
These two sites have replaced the NCRI-Chesapeake site and will be
involved in providing GIS solutions to environmental problems that
local government and regional planning commissions are dealing with in
the Upper Susquehanna/Lackawanna Watershed.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objectives to build institutional frameworks
for developing and disseminating geographic and related information to
local decisionmakers is constantly evolving. Each site has developed
approaches to addressing regional needs for modern technologies, and
many innovative applications have been implemented. Technologies,
including Internet-based educational and information exchange, have
been developed to respond to the Consortium's customers. The Consortium
has been asked to include these new technologies in order to bring its
primarily rural users into new eras of public education and information
management.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Proposals have been internally reviewed by Departmental
personnel in different agencies. Beginning in 1995, the program has
also been externally reviewed by local advisory committees and
qualified professionals inside and outside of government. Their various
comments and suggestions are sent to the agency and have helped with
the favorable merit reviews.
GULF COAST SHRIMP AQUACULTURE
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Gulf Coast Shrimp Aquaculture grant.
Answer. The agency requested that the Oceanic Institute, and the
Gulf Coast Research Laboratory submit a grant proposal that is
currently under review. Recent research has addressed three major areas
of research including: stock improvement; disease control; and
sustainable culture technology. A number of important viral pathogens
of marine shrimp have been identified and protocols have been
established for the detection of viral pathogens that have decimated
the shrimp industry world-wide. Improved viral detection techniques
have led to the development of specific pathogen-free stocks of
commercial importance. Researchers have responded rapidly to the
multiple viral diseases that have significantly impacted the United
States shrimp farming industry. Researchers will intensify efforts
aimed at preventing new introductions of exotic viral pathogens both in
commercial and wild shrimp stocks.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher indicates that there is potential
to enhance domestic production of marine shrimp through aquaculture in
order to reduce the approximately $3 billion annual trade deficit in
marine shrimp. Research continues to improve the supply of high quality
seed, improve shrimp health management, improve biosecurity and
environmental protection, and enhance production efficiency in shrimp
culture systems. The United States has the opportunity to become a
major exporter of shrimp seed and broodstock, disease control and
biosecurity technologies, products, and services.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal was to increase domestic production of
marine shrimp through aquaculture. Researchers have responded to severe
disease outbreaks caused by the introduction of exotic viral pathogens
into United States shrimp farms and recent studies have focused on the
prevention and detection of shrimp viral diseases which have decimated
domestic commercial production. Production of specific-pathogen free
and specific-pathogen resistant seed and broodstock, biosecure and
environmentally compatible productions systems, and improved feeds and
feeding strategies for broodstock maturation and larval production will
all enhance United States production technology while preventing the
introduction of exotic pathogens into commercial and wild shrimp
stocks. Diagnostic and disinfection techniques for a number of
important viral pathogens have been developed. In addition, scientists
are developing high-health genetically improved stocks and evaluating
these animals under commercial production conditions.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1985, $1,050,000; fiscal year 1986, $1,236,000;
fiscal year 1987, $2,026,000; fiscal year 1988, $2,236,000; fiscal year
1989, $2,736,000; fiscal year 1990, $3,195,000; fiscal year 1991,
$3,365,000; and fiscal years 1992-1993, $3,500,000 per year; fiscal
year 1994, $3,290,000; and fiscal year 1995, $2,852,000; fiscal year
1996, $3,054,000; and fiscal years 1997 through 2000, $3,354,000. A
total of $45,456,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The United States Marine Shrimp Farming Consortium
estimates that non-federal funding for this program approaches 50
percent of the Federal funding for fiscal years 1991-2000. The source
of non-federal funding is primarily from state and miscellaneous
sources.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work is being carried out through grants awarded to the
Oceanic Institute in Hawaii and the Gulf Coast Research Laboratory in
Mississippi. Research is also conducted through subcontracts with Tufts
University, the Waddell Mariculture Center in South Carolina, the Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station, and the University of Arizona.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original specific
research objectives was 1987. The original specific objectives have
been met, however new challenges to the United States farm-raised
shrimp industry continue the need for shrimp culture research.
Researchers anticipate that the specific research outlined in the
current proposal will be completed in fiscal year 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This project proposal is reviewed annually by the agency's
Program Managers and the Program Specialist and is consistent with
United States Department of Agriculture guidelines. Participating
institutions are required to submit a detailed accomplishment report
with the submission of each new grant proposal. The 1999 review of the
program found that the progress during the last twelve months has been
well documented and the proposal is well written. Research objectives
are being met and the proposed research is consistent with the National
Science and Technology Council's Strategic Plan for Aquaculture
Research and Development. Facilities and expertise are very good and
the close linkages between the researchers involved and the United
States shrimp farming industry has greatly enhanced the
commercialization of the research findings from this project. The
United States Marine Shrimp Farming Project continues to address
important research needs of the industry and has played a critical role
in developing management strategies for protecting both wild and
cultured stocks from the introduction of viral pathogens. The agency
conducted an on-site review of this program in October, 1999. The
agency is awaiting the final report of the review team.
LIVESTOCK MARKETING INFORMATION CENTER, COLORADO
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the Livestock Marketing Information Center program.
Answer. This is a new project and Colorado State University is
submitting its first grant proposal in fiscal year 2000. The project
will enhance the ability of the Center to provide objective analyses of
livestock markets and make recommendations to livestock producers.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Recent changes in the structure of the livestock industry
and in farm legislation have forced producers to pay more attention to
market signals. Market prices have become more volatile because of
changing domestic and international markets, thereby increasing
producers' need for high quality market information and interpretation.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal is to increase the ability of livestock producers
to make good business decisions in a changing global economy.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by the grant begins in fiscal year 2000
with an appropriation of $170,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The Center includes a consortium of faculty from 22
universities; participating universities contribute about $170,000 of
non-federal funds a year.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work will be carried at the Livestock Marketing
Information Center, Denver, Colorado in cooperation with Colorado State
University and 21 other universities.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The objectives and duration of the project will be
specified in the grant proposal to be submitted in fiscal year 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This is a brand new project. CSREES will carefully review
the proposal when it is received.
MARICULTURE, NORTH CAROLINA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Mariculture, North Carolina grant.
Answer. The agency requested that the university submit a grant
proposal that has yet to be received. The long-term goal of the project
is to develop methods for mass propagation of marine finfish for
commercial cultivation and possible stock enhancement. Specific
objectives include development of growout technologies from juvenile to
marketable stages and broodstock husbandry practices of selected marine
species including the southern flounder and the black sea bass.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The Principal Investigators forecast an increasing need for
the development of aquacultural production systems and methodologies
for a variety of marine finfish. Results from this research will have
broad application in the identification and development of marine
species with commercial potential in the United States.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this research program is to develop sustainable
aquaculture production systems for marine finfish. Captive mutton
snapper were successfully matured and spawned and the resulting larvae
reared through the juvenile stages. Juveniles were supplied to
commercial and governmental organizations for commercial grow-out
trials. Initial results appear promising with good survival rates and
excellent feed conversion ratios. Captive-spawned mutton snapper are
currently being raised to maturity and methods are being evaluated to
control gonadal maturation through temperature and light manipulation
and hormone treatment.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998.
The appropriation for fiscal year 1998 was $150,000, and for fiscal
years 1999 and 2000, $250,000 was made available. A total of $650,000
has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The university estimates that approximately $115,000 of
non-federal funds were provided for this project in fiscal year 1998
and $61,941 were provided for fiscal year 1999. These funds came
primarily from state and private sources.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research will be conducted at the Center for Marine
Science Research at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The project was initiated in fiscal year 1998. The original
goals continue to be addressed. The anticipated completion date for the
current proposal is fiscal year 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The Program Managers and Program Specialist evaluate the
progress of this project on an annual basis and is consistent with
United States Department of Agriculture guidelines. The proposal is
well-written and the objectives are clearly stated. The methodology and
experimental design are sound. The research is relevant and addresses a
potential opportunity for the aquaculture industry. Facilities are
excellent and have been enhanced through this program. The research
team is well-qualified and has the appropriate background. Literature
and justifications for research are provided.
NATIONAL CENTER FOR PEANUT COMPETITIVENESS
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the National Center for Peanut Competitiveness grant.
Answer. The grant supports an interdisciplinary research and
education program to enhance the competitiveness of the U.S. peanut
industry by examining alternative production systems, developing new
products and new markets, and improving product safety.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Peanuts are a very important crop in several southern
states. In many counties, peanuts provide more than 50 percent of all
crop income. Peanut producers have been major beneficiaries of
government income protection programs, but Federal farm and trade
policies are changing and producers must become more competitive and
market oriented.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The project helps peanut producers be more competitive in
the global market. Recent results include: economic feasibility
analyses of alternative production and risk management practices; a
computerized expert system adapted for hand-held computers to help
farmers reduce pest control costs; the addition of economic factors to
a computerized disease risk management system. The Center attracted
some additional funding from other sources to purchase hand-held
computers to run the pest management program for a number of producers.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998.
Appropriations have been as follows: $150,000 in 1998; $300,000 in
1999; and $300,000 in 2000. Total appropriations to date total
$750,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: in fiscal year 1998, the state of Georgia contributed
$141,181 and the state of Alabama, $15,000; in 1999, the state of
Georgia contributed $504,354 and the state of Alabama, $67,553.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The Center is located at the University of Georgia at
Griffen and involves cooperators from nearby peanut producing states,
such as Auburn University in Alabama.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1998 was for a period of 36
months, however, the need to improve the competitiveness of U.S. peanut
growers continues to grow. The current phase of the program will be
completed in 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in August
1999, when it evaluated the current year's project proposal, and
concluded that ``the project has sound objectives and procedures for
helping the U.S. peanut industry become competitive, thereby
contributing to the CSREES goals of a highly competitive agricultural
production system and enhanced economic opportunity for Americans.''
The principal investigator and other faculty named in the proposal are
recognized for their leadership in the industry.
PM-10 STUDY, CALIFORNIA AND WASHINGTON
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the PM-10 study, California and Washington research
grant.
Answer. The PM-10 study in California and Washington addresses the
effects of emissions of PM-10 and PM-2.5 sized particulates, or dust,
from agricultural land on air quality and development of control
strategies. These studies are being conducted by scientists at the
University of California-Davis and the Washington State University, in
cooperation with Federal, state, and local agricultural, environmental,
and health agencies, and farmers and growers in both states. The
California program has focused on developing and refining methods to
accurately measure and detect the sources of PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions
from various agricultural susceptible California crops and soils. In
addition, the California research has been expanded to include dust and
gaseous emissions from cattle feedlots, dairies, and poultry industry.
This is related to livestock operations. The Washington State
University scientists are using refined instruments on field sites to
measure and predict the effects of wind erosion and agricultural
practices in the Columbia River Basin region on PM-10 and PM-2.5
emissions, under both natural wind erosion and with portable wind
tunnel studies. Alternative cropping and tillage practices, residue
management, and weed control practices are being developed and compared
for control of PM-10 and PM-2.5 emission pollution under Columbia River
Basin conditions.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. There has been growing national concern over the potential
health and safety aspects of air pollution from dusts and suspended
particulate matter resulting in passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act, as
well as state air quality laws in both California and Washington.
Because of particular problems from PM-10 and PM-2.5 emission in the
arid regions of the Western United States, research on the role of
agricultural operations in intensively cultivated soils in California
and the Columbia River Basin, as sources of PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goals of this research were to measure the PM-
10 emission rates from significant crop and tillage practices, to
determine the source of PM-10 emissions on soils in agricultural
regions of central and southern California and the Columbia River Basin
in the Pacific Northwest, and to explore cost-effective alternative
agricultural practices to control these emissions. More recently,
studies of finer PM-2.5 particulates have been included because of
their recognized potential health risks. In California, field
measurements are being continued on both PM-2.5 and PM-10 emissions on
production practices on almonds, figs, walnuts, cotton, wheat, and on
ammonia emissions from dairy farms and feedlots. Similar studies in the
Columbia River Basin are being conducted in Washington on a number of
agricultural practices in the rain-fed and dryland croplands.
Susceptible climatic and soil conditions and tillage and cropping
practices have been identified and are being used to develop prediction
tools to assist growers to adopt alternative practices to reduce
potential air pollution by PM-10 and PM-2.5 particulate emissions.
During 1998 an intensive study was undertaken to evaluate emission
differences in almond harvesters. Data has been taken in California to
assess land preparation techniques.
A Light Detection and Ranging system has been developed at the
University of California at Davis that makes it possible to take a
snapshot of the shape of an emission plume from a source such as a
harvester, and to make estimates on the amount of particulate material
emitted into the atmosphere and its subsequent transport. Efforts
continue to calibrate the Light Detection and Ranging System.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in March 1994. The
appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $940,000; fiscal year 1995,
$815,000; and for fiscal years 1996 through 2000, $873,000 per year. A
total of $6,120,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. In California, the program is matched by State funds in the
form of salaries, benefits, and operating costs. In Washington, there
were no state or non-federal funds in support of the PM-10 project in
1994 and 1995. In 1996, state support was $22,566, and in 1997, state
support was $102,364. Similar funding was continued in 1998 and 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This work is being directed by participating scientists at
the University of California-Davis and at the Washington State
University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date of the original objectives
of this project is 2000. The first four objectives of the project on
soil particle characterization are anticipated to be completed in 1999.
The objectives on field control will continue. In 1998, a manual for
practices was developed and circulated for use by growers in Washington
State to reduce wind erosion on agricultural land. Implementation and
development of these management practices will be a major role of this
project in the future. Quarterly and annual reports on the Washington
State project to date are available.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency's Program Manager annually reviews the research
progress reports and proposed new research and attends the annual
meetings of the program to assess progress. The program is also
evaluated each year by technical, administrative, and agency personnel.
Progress is reported at research review meetings three times a year,
with the November 1998 advisory committee members. A formal on-site
review by a panel of experts was conducted of the Washington program in
November 1997, and a similar review of the California program is
planned in the near future.
PRECISION AGRICULTURE, ALABAMA AND TENNESSEE
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Precision Agriculture, Alabama and Tennessee
grant.
Answer. CSREES has requested the university to submit a grant
proposal that has not yet been received. This grant will develop needed
training for farmers in the use Global Positioning Systems,
Geographical Information Systems, Remote Sensing and Variable Rate
Technology for precision farming application.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. This project will focus on the Southeastern area of the
U.S. However results will apply to anywhere precision farming is
applied.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this project is to provide training
for farmers in the use of precision farming technology.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2000
and is funded at $425,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. This is a new project and therefore no non-federal funds
have been provided.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The project will be conducted at the United States Space
and Rocket Center Huntsville, Alabama and the Tennessee Valley Research
and Extension Center at Belle Minci, Alabama.
Question. When was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
was 2004.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This project is under development and has not yet been
evaluated.
WATER QUALITY--ILLINOIS
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the water quality program grant.
Answer. The Illinois Groundwater Consortium grew out of a fiscal
year 1990 appropriation of $500,000 to Southern Illinois University at
Carbondale to focus on the short- and long-term effects of agricultural
chemical contamination on the environment, the groundwater, and
ultimately, human health and welfare. As a result of this
appropriation, the University joined forces with the Illinois State
Geological Survey, Illinois State Water Survey, the University of
Illinois Cooperative Extension Service, and the University of Illinois
Agricultural Experiment Station to create the Illinois Groundwater
Consortium. The Consortium's primary mission, then and now, is to work
effectively toward providing a scientifically-valid basis upon which
meaningful agricultural chemical management and regulatory decisions
can be based. The Consortium has worked to address the concerns of the
agricultural and agrichemical industries as well as the valid concerns
of the agencies charged with protection of environmental quality.
Projects supported with Consortium funding are peer reviewed by
researchers at 35 different universities and agencies from across the
Nation, and results are presented and critiqued annually at the
Consortium's Research Planning Conference.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The fiscal year 1998 appropriation was targeted to research
pertaining to the impacts, recovery, and remediation of the Midwestern
region after flooding. The 1993 and 1995 flooding of the Mississippi,
Missouri, and Illinois Rivers, and their tributaries, created
devastating effects on the farm lands, communities, and natural
resources of the area. These effects have major implications for
agricultural practices, water quality, and public policy decisions.
This natural catastrophe has resulted in a need for further studies
examining the impact of the flooding on surface/groundwater, soils and
their rehabilitation, biodiversity, and on economic and public policy
in the region. In addition, there is the need to disseminate results to
the public to enable the Consortium findings to be beneficial in the
near term to those needing the information. To facilitate this work,
the Consortium expanded its participant institutions to include
Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville. Southern Illinois
University at Edwardsville's strategic location in the heart of the
flood damage area, as well as its qualified research scientists who
work in the Consortium's high priority research areas, strengthen the
capabilities of the Consortium. The highest priorities of the
Consortium are: (1) the funding of research upon which public
policymakers working on land use or groundwater protection issues in
flood plain areas can base decisions and (2) the broad dissemination of
this information. The projects funded by the Consortium are providing
researchers opportunities to obtain data upon which larger projects can
be built. Without this initial data, funding from other competitive
sources would be difficult to obtain. The Consortium has tried to
expand its efforts through a proposal for funds from the Fund for Rural
America. This application received good feedback but was not funded. A
revised proposal to similar funding sources is planned in the
continuing efforts to expand the basic and applied impacts of the
Consortium's research.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The Illinois Groundwater Consortium was established to
coordinate and support research on agricultural chemicals in Illinois
groundwater. The recent Midwest flood of the Mississippi, Missouri, and
Illinois Rivers, and their tributaries, created devastating effects on
farm lands that have major implications for agricultural practices and
water quality in the region as well as effects in other states in the
Midwest. The Consortium would like to be a leader in providing
information to facilitate short-term and long-term systems studies of
the effects of flooding on groundwater and surface water upon which to
base policy management decisions. Research areas characterizing short-
term and long-term projects completed, underway, or proposed for each
research area include:
Short-term
Effect of extended inundation on soil productivity.
Movement of chemicals--pesticides, herbicides, heavy metal, other
chemicals--from flooded soils into surface and groundwater.
Impacts on soil fertility and nutrient balance caused by flooding.
Changes in nitrogen-fixing bacteria or pesticide microbic activity
due to flooding.
Impacts of flooding on plant and aquatic life, including endangered
and dangerous species, and microbial communities.
Effectiveness of riparian buffer strips under flooded conditions.
Groundwater quality changes resulting from flood related land-use
developments in both the bottomlands where farming practices change and
in the uplands where new communities are being developed.
Long-term
Effectiveness of methods of remediation for flooded soils.
Changes in surface and groundwater quality over time with changes
in flooding conditions.
Changes in soil chemistry and productivity over time.
Long-term effects and recovery of microbic activity.
Effects of time on recovery and eradication of plant and aquatic
life.
Recommendations for long-term, systems-based planning and
management for watershed and bottomland management.
Examination of public policy decisions with implications for
agriculture and water quality in light of flooding effects and
recovery.
Long-term implication for public policy decisions and management of
the river systems.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Research grants have been awarded from funds appropriated
as follows: fiscal year 1990, $494,000; fiscal year 1991, $600,000; and
fiscal years 1992-1993, $750,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $666,000;
fiscal year 1995, $460,000; fiscal year 1996, $468,000; fiscal years
1997 and 1998, $465,000 per year; and fiscal year 2000, $297,500. A
total of $5,415,500 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $255,891 state appropriations in 1991; $447,237 state
appropriations in 1992; $644,054 state appropriations in 1993; and
$623,124 state appropriations in 1994. Non-federal and state funds for
1995-1997 have exceeded the federal funds.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work is being carried out by the Illinois Groundwater
Consortium and coordinated by the Carbondale campus of Southern
Illinois University. The research is being conducted by staff at the
University of Illinois, Southern Illinois University-Carbondale, the
Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville, the Illinois State
Geological Society and the Illinois State Water Survey at locations
across the State of Illinois and in Missouri.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This project was planned as a 5-year study of the impacts
and recovery of flooding in the Midwest. In the original proposal and
subsequent proposals, we identified both short-term objectives which
are project goals that could be accomplished within 1-2 years and long-
term objectives which are project goals that could be accomplished
within 2-5 years. In calendar year 1997, we completed 3 years of
studies involving 26 projects, and in calendar year 1998, we began 4
new projects and continued 12 projects. These projects were spread
across areas identified as high priority, including studies of flood
impacts on soil productivity and remediation, movement of chemicals in
water and soils, bacteria and microbial life, plants and aquatic life,
and on public policy impact. Results of projects completed in previous
years and progress reports on projects underway are published each year
as part of the Proceedings of the annual conference of the Illinois
Groundwater Consortium and in the Illinois Groundwater Consortium's
Groundwater Bulletin. Dissemination of both of these publications is
broad-based, utilizing mailing lists to public and private institutions
and individuals kept by the University of Illinois Cooperative
Extension Service, the Illinois Groundwater Consortium, as well as
dissemination through related conferences and workshops. Progress in
meeting short-term and long-term objectives has been excellent. The
most complex task is coordinating research projects on flood issues
involving multiple issues, such as biological, social, economic and
political issues, where effective solutions await the expansion of
research databases. Due to waterborne contaminant problems within the
Mississippi River Basin and sub-basins, it is anticipated that the
projects will continue beyond the year 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. From its beginning, the projects funded through the
Illinois Groundwater Consortium involve reviews by at least three
faculty/researchers drawn from 35 different universities, state, and
federal labs and surveys, USDA's research laboratories, and other
research centers. The reviewers rate proposals on criteria pertaining
to scientific merit, quality of the research team, likelihood of the
work resulting in publications and grant support from other sources,
and relatedness of the project to the key objectives of the Illinois
Groundwater Consortium. This peer review system enables the
Consortium's Advisory Committee to select projects with high scientific
merit from the group of proposals submitted for funding consideration.
The titles, principal investigators' names and affiliations, and
budgets are submitted to the USDA for review along with the
Consortium's proposal for funding.
WATER QUALITY--NORTH DAKOTA
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the water quality, North Dakota program grant.
Answer. The original goal of this research was to develop an
understanding of the occurrence, transport, and fate of agricultural
chemicals found in representative field settings in the Northern Great
Plains region of the United States. In 1996, the scope of the program
was expanded to include additional water management issues in the Red
River of the North drainage basin. The Red River Water Management
Consortium, a partnership between public and private sectors, was
established to address critical water quality and quantity issues in an
area where agriculture is the predominant industry. A major objective
of the Red River Water Management Consortium is to use results from the
initial phases of this research program to find economical, practical,
and timely technological solutions to water problems of the region. By
providing cofunding for the program, Red River Water Management
Consortium members become active stakeholders in the research and
ensure the practicality of the work performed.
The focus of current work is on:
--the assessment, development, and implementation of new technologies
for addressing water quality and quantity concerns within the
basin;
--water resource assessment and analysis, including the development
of mechanisms for providing easy access to water-related
information so proper water management decisions can be made;
--the determination of agricultural, industrial, municipal, and
recreational impacts on water resources, both current and
potential, and the identification of potential solutions to
water quality and quantity problems and needs;
--water quality monitoring and coordination of monitoring activities;
--education and information dissemination on water issues facing this
region of the United States; and
--the development of a watershed management strategy for the Red
River of the North Basin focusing on water quality and quantity
to ensure continued economic development of the area.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The original focus of the work was on agricultural
chemicals in groundwater which potentially presents both a public
health and an environmental quality problem of significant short- and
long-term importance. The goal of this work was to provide a
scientifically valid basis upon which meaningful agricultural chemical
management and regulatory decisions could be made. The establishment of
the Red River Water Management Consortium provided a mechanism for
transferring results of the initial research to vested stakeholders of
the region and for addressing water quality and quantity issues
resulting from agricultural practices and development. The overall goal
of the Red River Water Management Consortium is the development of a
long-term watershed management strategy focusing on water quality and
quantity which can be used as a model for watershed management in other
agricultural regions in the United States.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the research program was to understand
the occurrence, transport, and fate of agricultural chemicals in
representative field settings in the northern Great Plains region so
scientifically-valid decisions could be made for their management and
regulation. Work on five of the seven sites originally instrumented
under this program has been completed. Research at the two remaining
sites is directed toward Answer.ing questions that have arisen during
the course of this research program, specifically to determine the
long-term trends in nitrate concentrations in surficial aquifers under
irrigated agriculture and to determine the source and trends for
sulfate.
Results from this program have been reported in journals,
conference proceedings, and through presentations at national, state,
and local meetings. To date, more than 40 presentations or publications
have resulted. In addition, two doctoral dissertations and one master's
thesis have resulted from this program.
Finally, the researchers have established the Red River Water
Management Consortium as a mechanism for transferring the results of
the initial research to vested stakeholders in the region and to the
general public in order to address water quality and quantity problems
resulting from agricultural practices and agricultural development.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. In 1989, $1.0 million was appropriated under the
groundwater research program. Beginning in 1990, funds have been
earmarked under the Direct Federal Administration program. Work
supported by this grant was initiated in fiscal year 1990 with an
appropriation of $987,000. Subsequent appropriations have been $750,000
in fiscal year 1991, $500,000 per year in fiscal years 1992-1993;
$470,000 in 1994; $407,000 in fiscal year 1995; $436,000 in fiscal
years 1996-1998; and $340,000 in fiscal year 2000. A total of
$6,602,000 has been appropriated for this water quality research
program.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Red River Water Management Consortium members provide co-
funding to support their participation in the program. Cofunding
provided by Red River Water Management Consortium members for fiscal
year 1996 totaled $59,700 and for fiscal year 1997 totaled $80,000.
Interest in this program continues to grow, and it was expected that at
least $100,000 in cost-share would be obtained during fiscal year 1998
through membership fees. These funds are provided directly to the
program and do not include in-kind costs incurred by the participants
which are estimated to be several hundred thousand dollars.
Field activities to determine the long-term trends of nitrate and
sulfate and to determine the source of sulfate are being conducted in
cooperation with the North Dakota State Water Commission, which is
providing an estimated cash equivalent funding in the amount of $33,660
for sample analysis and approximately $12,000 for field
instrumentation. Instrumentation of sites occurred in fiscal year 1997,
and sampling and analysis continued through fiscal year 1999.
Consortium members' dues are also used to provide in-kind services
for match in other projects being performed by the Red River Water
Management Consortium. A major project sponsored by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and local contributors to restore
riparian areas in the Red River of the North Basin has been funded and
will provide $175,000 for consortium activities over the next 4 years.
The amount of in-kind services provided from Consortium member fees is
$9,000 per year.
The U.S. Corps of Engineers has contracted through the Red River
Water Management Consortium a $100,000 6-month effort to improve the
decision making capability regarding ongoing flooding within the Devils
Lake Basin, a sub-basin of the Red River of the North Basin. This work
is intended to produce decision support tools, forecasts, data, and
forums that can be continued to be used by the Corps St. Paul district,
the states of North Dakota and Minnesota, the International Joint
Commission, and the people of the Devils Lake region after the project
has been completed.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at the University of North
Dakota through its Energy and Environmental Research Center and at
field sites and agricultural product-processing facilities in North
Dakota, Minnesota, and Montana. In addition, a portion of the pesticide
research was conducted at North Dakota State University. Cooperative
efforts have resulted in work also being performed at cooperative
institution locations such as the University of Waterloo, Victoria
University, University of Montana, the Red River Resource Conservation
and Development Council offices, and the North Dakota State Water
Commission.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
of the project, specifically the field-related research, was fall 1995.
This research has been completed; and the sites have been
decommissioned, with the exception of those relating to long-term
nitrate and sulfate monitoring and analysis. Work on nitrate and
sulfate trends and occurrence was scheduled for completion in 1999. The
Red River Water Management Consortium was established in 1996 as a
mechanism for transferring the information derived from this research
program to the technical community and to the public for use in
addressing water quality and quantity issues relating to agriculture
and agricultural development. It is anticipated that Red River Water
Management Consortium activities will continue for several years in
order to meet the objectives as defined by the non-federal sponsors and
the agency.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The last agency evaluation of this project was conducted in
September 1996. CSREES' Technical Project Officer attended a meeting of
the Red River Water Management Consortium to evaluate and determine the
status of this effort, which is currently the focus of research program
activities. Progress was made by the Consortium during its first year,
and the program is an excellent example of how federal and state
agencies, research and academic institutions, private industry, and the
general public can work together to solve problems in an economical
manner to benefit people, communities, and the Nation. All project
objectives were met for the first-year Consortium activities.
EXTENSION FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION PROJECTS
AGRICULTURE IN THE CLASSROOM
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Ag in the Classroom grant.
Answer. Agriculture in the Classroom is an academic program
designed to promote agricultural literacy among kindergarten through
12th grade--K-12--students. Funds appropriated for this program are
used to leverage agricultural literacy activities in all fifty States,
the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories by providing national
leadership and guidance to State Agriculture in the Classroom
Coordinators. This serves the educational needs of more than five
million students through a network of more than 120,000 teachers
annually. Activities during the past year include implementation of
cooperative agreements to identify sound instructional materials that
focus on the contribution of minorities to the food and agricultural
system, establishment of a web site to provide faster and more cost-
effective dissemination of information and materials, and planning and
conducting an annual national conference.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. This outreach program is directed toward the youth of
America. In the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
Congress noted the importance of increasing the number of young
Americans pursuing baccalaureate or higher degrees in the food and
agricultural sciences. Agricultural literacy is a first step in
creating interest and awareness of career opportunities in the food and
agricultural sciences. Education studies cite that students learn best
by example. Agriculture provides an excellent vehicle for providing
hands-on learning experiences in a variety of academic disciplines
including biological science, social science, language arts, and
mathematics.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original purpose of this outreach program was to
promote agricultural literacy through the education system. The
Secretary of Agriculture established the Agriculture in the Classroom
Program in 1981 to help future generations become more agriculturally
literate. Agriculture in the Classroom helps students understand the
complexity of the total food and fiber system, appreciate its impact on
the economy and society, and become citizens who support wise
agricultural policies. The program encourages educators to integrate
the critical role of agriculture in our economy and society into their
teaching. The program provides leadership, counsel and education
materials, and maintains a nationwide network of teachers, farmers,
agribusinesses, and government officials who actively support the
Agriculture in the Classroom mission. Cooperation between the Federal
government and the agricultural community is strengthened through a
Memorandum of Understanding between the National Agriculture in the
Classroom Consortium and USDA.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal years to date.
Answer. A total of $2,461,880 has been appropriated for this
program as follows: fiscal year 1986, $76,000; fiscal years 1987 and
1988, $74,000 per year; fiscal year 1989 $87,000; fiscal year 1990,
$135,000; fiscal year 1991, $170,000; fiscal years 1992 and 1993,
$208,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $185,000; fiscal year 1995,
$208,000; fiscal year 1996, $204,880; and fiscal years 1997 through
2000, $208,000 per year.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. This is not a grants program and does not require matching
funds. Agriculture in the Classroom is highly leveraged through a
variety of public and private funding that supports the State programs.
The cooperative agreements that are in place have matching funds.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. National leadership for the Agriculture in the Classroom is
provided by the Higher Education Programs unit within the CSREES. Each
State actually manages its own program. Overall, the national program
impacts an estimated 120,000 teachers and over 5 million students
annually in grades K-12.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related activities?
Answer. Beginning in 1981, under the direction of the Secretary of
Agriculture, an Agriculture in the Classroom program was initiated in
every State, the District of Columbia, and in the U.S. territories.
Each State has a viable program. The goal of promoting agricultural
literacy among America's youth is a continuing effort to serve each new
generation of students.
In the past year, cooperative agreements have been implemented for
the development of a high quality web site to coordinate and exchange
ideas among each of the Agriculture in the Classroom State
Coordinators, to sponsor national teaching awards, and further
disseminate superior agricultural educational materials.
Agriculture in the Classroom annually sponsors a National
Agriculture in the Classroom Conference to bring the Agriculture in the
Classroom community together to expand experiences, ideas, materials,
information, and techniques among State programs, educators,
governmental agencies, agribusinesses and agricultural organizations. A
quarterly newsletter communicates agricultural educational topics. A
Resource Guide and outreach to educational associations are planned to
enhance the Agriculture in the Classroom efforts.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The State Agriculture in the Classroom program coordinators
have formed a National Agriculture in the Classroom Consortium. This
provides USDA with another source of stakeholder input for identifying
and setting priorities. Evaluations have been conducted in several
States. Findings are provided to the Executive Committee of the
National Agriculture in the Classroom Consortium and to the National
Program Leader.
During each national conference formal evaluations are conducted.
These are considered in defining future goals for the program.
Participants find the conferences valuable for sharing ideas on
projects and for obtaining resource materials. In response to
evaluations a ``teacher friendly'' web site has been developed and
efforts are underway to find, develop and disseminate new educational
materials.
BEEF IMPROVEMENT--ARKANSAS
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded as the Arkansas Beef Improvement Program.
Answer. The Arkansas Beef Improvement Program uses result
demonstrations to demonstrate cost effective beef management practices.
These demonstrations are conducted on family owned beef cattle
operations. The type of demonstrations implemented on the farms is
determined by the specific problems and needs of the rancher. Education
gained is then transferred to other producers through beef cattle field
days and presentations, 6-hour county workshops, factsheets and popular
press articles.
Question. What is the national, regional or local need for this
program?
Answer. When planning, implementing and monitoring demonstrations,
a business plan is used with specific goals and objectives. Therefore,
the overall educational goal is to teach that decision making process
rather than the specific management practices. Management problems
differ from farm to farm, region to region and from year to year.
Therefore, emphasizing problem identification and evaluation, exploring
management options and monitoring progress are procedures that can be
used throughout the ranching industry.
Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The overall goal of the Arkansas Beef Improvement Program
was to enhance the efficiency and profitability of the Arkansas beef
cattle producer. This program uses demonstration farms to implement and
evaluate management practices. There are four farms enrolled in whole
farm demonstrations. These demonstrations are five-year commitments.
Three farms are in year three of the program and one farm is in year
one. There are eight special projects that address specific management
problems. Depending upon the special project, they can last two to five
years. Twenty farms either have been or are currently enrolled in
special projects. A six-hour workshop was developed to teach other
producers the decision making process used and practices implemented on
demonstration farms. Twenty-six workshops in 21 countries have been
conducted. A quarterly Arkansas Beef Improvement Newsletter, two
Extension publications and monthly articles in the Arkansas Cattle
Business publication are methods used to transfer information to the
public.
Question. How long has the program been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. $200,000 has been devoted to this project from fiscal years
1993 through 1995 and in fiscal years 1996 through 2000, $197,000 was
appropriated for a total of $1,585,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Arkansas provided $118,154 for this past year.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The four current whole farm demonstrations and eight
special projects are located on beef producing farms located throughout
the state of Arkansas. These farms are family owned and operated and
vary in size and stocking rates.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The Arkansas Beef Improvement Program currently has four
whole farm demonstrations and twenty special projects. Three of the
whole farm projects will finish in 2001, and the fourth whole farm
project will finish in 2003. The special projects include cowherd
performance, pasture renovation, establishing a breeding and calving
season, stocker cattle, hay quality and supplemental feeding,
replacement heifer management, cull cow management, and stockpiled
forages. These projects range from two to five years in length. As
farms complete special projects; additional farms are selected for
special projects. The management problems addressed in special projects
changes depending upon the need at the time.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. A CSREES review of this project is conducted annually. The
1999 review was positive, with mention made of the efforts to develop
decision making skills among beef producers. A suggestion was made to
expand the environmental protection aspects of the project.
botanic garden initiative, illinois
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Botanic Garden Initiative, Illinois.
Answer. CSREES has requested the university to submit a grant
proposal that has not yet been received. The program is expected to
increase student interest and understanding of science and other
related subjects using gardening as the focus.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. We have contacted the Chicago Botanic Garden regarding this
special grant. Their anticipated research is expected to result in
educational curricula, lesson plans, garden design and construction
recommendations, and garden activities that will serve as a model for
other cities throughout the U.S.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The anticipated goal of this research is to develop an
innovative program that increases green spaces at Chicago's public
schools and teaches elementary school students the value of plant
science, math, nutrition, business, and literature. Students and
teachers, in collaboration with the Garden, build and maintain gardens
by using the Life Lab curriculum, a nationally acclaimed and widely
used science curriculum.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2000
and the appropriation for fiscal year 2000 is $106,263.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds sources provided for this grant have
not been determined at this time, since the grant has not yet been
received.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This work will be conducted at the Chicago Botanical
Garden.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Current progress indicates the anticipated completion date
for the original objectives is five years.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provided summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This is a new project which will begin in 2000; therefore
no evaluation has occurred.
conservation technology transfer, wisconsin
Question. Please provide a description of the extension project
that has been funded under the Conservation Technology Transfer,
Wisconsin grant.
Answer. This is a new project that will leverage funding at the
University of Wisconsin with other federal, state and local sources to
provide education and technical support to livestock producers
regarding animal waste.
Question. According to the proposal, what is the national, regional
or local need for this project?
Answer. The need for this project is to meet new federal
regulations on animal waste to protect public waters and air quality.
It can also serve as a regional model for the dairy industry.
Question. What was the original goal of this project and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this project is to coordinate nutrient
management assistance for livestock producers among multiple agencies
and the private sector. It is a new project that has not yet received
funding.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant will begin in fiscal year
2000, and the appropriation for fiscal year 2000 is $170,022.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are expected to be $600,000 from state and local funds for fiscal year
2000. As a new grant, commitments are still being secured.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This project will be conducted with individual producers
throughout Wisconsin, in coordination with the USDA Agricultural
Research Station in Madison.
Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
is one year from the date of fund transfer. As a new project, no funds
have been received to date.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Answer. This new project will have an evaluation process included
in the proposal.
DELTA TEACHERS ACADEMY
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded under the Delta Teachers Academy project.
Answer. The National Academy proposes to continue its Delta
Teachers Academy in the Lower Mississippi Delta Region--219 counties
and parishes near the Mississippi River including portions of Arkansas,
Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee--
focusing on educational improvement in core subject areas. The program
was launched in 1992 with a pilot grant of $500,000 from the U.S.
Department of Education. U.S. Department of Agriculture funding began
in 1994. The program provides long-term academic enrichment to
approximately 525 elementary and secondary school teachers at 35 sites
by teaming them with university scholars for in-service training during
the school year and with summer institutes. Through its Fellows
Program, the Delta Teachers Academy sustains the professional
development of more than 650 Academy graduates throughout the region.
This grant is not awarded competitively; however, we require annual
applications reporting the previous year's accomplishments and
describing planned activities and expenditures for the coming year.
These applications undergo merit review before the awards are made.
Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
project?
Answer. The 219-county Lower Mississippi Delta region has been
cited by the Educational Testing Service and the National Center for
Education Statistics as notably lagging in student performance in core
academic areas. According to the grant recipient, 33 percent of the
children in the region live below the poverty line compared to 20.5
percent nationally. In 1996, 60 percent of Louisiana's public school
sample ranked ``below basic'' on the National Assessment of Education
Progress test for eighth-graders. The USDA's Economic Research Service
correlated poor educational performance, rural poverty, and limited
economic development. The Delta Development Commission cited serious
educational problems including poor student performance in core content
areas, demoralized teachers with little opportunity for academic
development, and region-wide difficulty in recruiting and retaining
qualified teachers. The Commission noted that 75 percent of the
region's workforce lacks the basic reading skills necessary for
technical training, and specifically cited improved teacher training as
one means for breaking the cycle of poverty and economic
noncompetitiveness.
Question. What was the original goal of the program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original and continuing goal of the project is to
address the problem of insufficient professional development
opportunities for the elementary and secondary teachers of the seven-
state region. The Delta Teachers Academy focuses on core subjects of
English, geography, history, mathematics and science. Some sites also
focus on humanities, language arts, social studies, reading, civics and
interdisciplinary subjects. The Delta Teachers Academy began by
offering educational development activities for 100 teachers from 50
rural districts at 10 sites. Training has expanded to 600 teachers at
35 sites across the entire seven-state region. More than 750 graduates
whose professional development is sustained through the Academy's
Fellows Program lead teacher in-service training at their home schools.
The project has improved student performance and teacher training,
morale, recruitment and retention in the region.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. A total of $24.161 million has been appropriated to the
Department of Agriculture for this project, including $2 million in
fiscal year 1994; $3.935 million in fiscal year 1995; $3.876 million in
fiscal year 1996; $3.850 million in fiscal year 1997; and $3.500
million each year in fiscal years 1998 through 2000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. There are no non-federal funds identified for this project.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The Delta Teachers Academy project is coordinated out of
The National Faculty's Southern Region office in New Orleans,
Louisiana. The project is conducted at 33 sites in the seven-state
Lower Mississippi Delta region including Arkansas, Kentucky, Illinois,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objective was to provide three full years of
training to each faculty team established by the Delta Teachers
Academy. Training consists of four two-day academic sessions and one
two-week summer institute for each team. This objective was met for the
24 faculty teams funded under a fiscal year 1994 Department of
Agriculture grant; for 15 additional teams funded in 1995; and for one
team funded in fiscal year 1996. The 20 teams funded in fiscal year
1997 have received two years of training and the 14 teams funded in
fiscal year 1998 have received one year of training.
Objectives for fiscal year 1999 included providing ongoing
professional development of 33 teams consisting of 600 participants;
adding two additional teams to maintain the level of service to 35
teams throughout the region; instituting new procedures to better meet
clientele needs based on an independent review completed by Westat;
intensifying its individual and field-based approach; and drafting
individual work plans for each site. The anticipated completion date is
September 30, 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. An assessment of the short-term impact of the Delta
Teachers Academy by Westat, Inc. of Rockville, Maryland was completed
in August 1997. Westat found the majority of participants reported that
the Academy met their personal and professional needs by renewing their
enthusiasm for teaching, improving self-confidence, increasing their
sense of professionalism, improving their knowledge of specific content
areas, enhancing teaching methods and interacting with peers. Teachers
are applying what they have learned from the Academy in their
classrooms. For example:
--88 percent said the Academy prepared them to assume leadership
roles in their schools;
--89 percent noted changes in student work habits, attitudes,
aspirations and achievements;
--90 percent applied academic content from the program in their
classrooms;
--78 percent used skills and strategies learned at the Academy in
their classroom teaching;
--83 percent said their teaching approaches became more effective in
improving student learning.
A U.S. General Accounting Office review of the Academy's programs
was conducted in 1995. Report GAO/RCED-95-208 included summary
statistics on more than 1,000 teacher evaluations of Academy sessions
as well as the General Accounting Office's survey of participants. On
average, participants reported that the Academy was more effective than
any other teacher development program they had participated in, was
very effective in renewing or enhancing knowledge in one or more
academic subjects, and was generally effective in enhancing the
teaching skills and strategies required for teaching challenging
academic content.
A site visit of the Delta Teachers Academy in New Orleans,
Louisiana and the National Faculty's Summer Institute at Tulane
University was conducted by the CSREES's National Program Leader for
Higher Education and Evaluation in 1996. The visit confirmed that Delta
Teachers Academy strengthened participating teachers' abilities by
improving their knowledge base, helped them become leaders of other
teachers by requiring them to conduct staff development at their home
schools, and had a positive impact on student learning. School
superintendents reported greater student enthusiasm, more homework, and
higher test scores for students whose teachers were participants in the
Delta Teachers Academy program.
DIABETES DETECTION AND PREVENTION, WASHINGTON AND HAWAII
Question. Please provide a description of the extension activity
that has been funded under the Diabetes Detection and Prevention,
Washington and Hawaii, grant.
Answer. The grant supports research/demonstration and outreach
activities designed to (1) detect undiagnosed diabetes through use of a
non-invasive ocular fluorescence technique, and (2) promote
collaborative efforts by CSREES and The Joslin Diabetes Center to
develop and pilot test a model to provide diabetes screening,
prevention education, and case management services for selected rural
and urban populations in Hawaii and Washington.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research/demonstration program.
Answer. This program grows out of a need to reach more of the
millions of Americans who have undiagnosed diabetes. Diabetes is
currently one of the leading causes of death and disability in the U.S.
adult population, and is highest among certain racial and ethnic
populations, especially Native Americans, African Americans, Hispanic
Americans, and Asians and Pacific Islanders.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this research/demonstration and outreach
project is to (1) provide screening for diabetes among selected rural
minority patient populations in Washington and Hawaii using innovative
detection technology and blood glucose measures; (2) diabetes education
prevention and care materials; and (3) case management support and
follow-up services for patient referrals.
Among the accomplishments to date are the following:
--CSREES has met with representatives of the Joslin Diabetes Centers,
and convened regular telephone conferences with representatives
of State Cooperative Extension Partners in Washington and
Hawaii, and all partners.
--A Memorandum of Understanding has been prepared and approved by
USDA and Joslin Diabetes Center.
--A revised proposal has been submitted by the Joslin Diabetes
Center, and the Hawaii and Washington Extension Programs which
clarifies the Project's objectives, and establishes roles and
expectations of each of the partners.
--Prevention and care materials are in draft form and are being
reviewed by Cooperative Extension staff.
--Cooperative Extension staff are being trained in delivery
techniques for diabetes care and risk reductions strategies.
--Cooperative Extension staff are establishing local collaborations
with health agencies, and developing recruitment and
maintenance strategies.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999
with an appropriation of $550,000; the fiscal year 2000 appropriation
is $550,000. The total appropriation is $1,100,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. There were no non-federal funds and sources provided for
this grant.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research and demonstration will be conducted at Joslin
Diabetes Centers at Swedish Hospital in Seattle, Washington, and Straub
Hospital in Hawaii. In addition, the Cooperative Extension offices in
selected counties in Hawaii and Washington will be involved in program
implementation.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completed date for the original objectives
is 2002. The anticipated completion date of the revised objectives is
2004.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project did not get underway until late in fiscal year
1999 because of the need to prepare and seek approval of the Memorandum
of Understanding. Thus, an Agency evaluation has not yet occurred. A
mid-year evaluation of program outputs and the delivery process to date
will occur in July 2000.
EXTENSION SPECIALIST, MISSISSIPPI
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded as the Basic Weather Service for Research and Extension Project.
Answer. The Basic Weather Service and Extension project is designed
to fill a void in weather data due to closure of the Ag Weather Service
facility in Stoneville, Mississippi. The funding will be used to gather
and disseminate critical agricultural weather data for producers and
researchers in Mississippi and surrounding states.
Question. What is the national, regional or local need for this
program?
Answer. The grant proposal states that the Ag Weather Service
facility was closed at Stoneville, Mississippi. This action has created
a void in the availability of and access to critical weather data that
producers and researchers use to make management decisions and to
formulate work plans within the state and region. The weather data
collected by this project serves a national need to provide a national
database.
Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the project is to collect, maintain, and
disseminate weather information for producers and researchers in
Mississippi and surrounding states. Electronic weather stations and
links with other web sites to deliver weather data have been installed
and developed. The project is providing timely data to producers in the
Delta.
Question. How long has the program been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through 2000?
Answer. The funding for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 was $50,000 each
year and for fiscal years 1999 and 2000, $100,000 each year. A total of
$300,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The State of Mississippi through the Mississippi
Cooperative Extension Service and Delta Research and Extension Center
provided $41,350 in state appropriated funds to support this project in
1997, 1998, and 1999.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The project will be conducted at the Delta Research and
Extension Center in Stoneville, Mississippi.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of the additional or related objectives?
Answer. One of the original objectives, installation of equipment
to collect weather data and establishment of a website, has been
completed. The agriculture community--producers, markets, suppliers of
goods and services, and financial institutions--depend upon weather
information as a guide for business planning and decision making. The
National Weather Service has eliminated certain critical services to
rural areas and to agriculture clientele. As agriculture implements new
programs in pest management, crop production, and site-specific
farming, near real-time weather data is needed for the success of these
programs. Weather services provided by the Stoneville project will be
in cooperation with and complementary to services provided by the
National Weather Service. Additional objectives relating to the
collection, process, and disseminate of timely weather data are needed
in the Delta Region. Current funding supports the objectives to ensure
these weather services are available to the region.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Evaluation of the project and Internet website is being
conducted with an on-line survey instrument and through e-mail
responses about the site. An advisory group has been identified and is
functioning to provide feedback on the weather center's current status
as well as assessing needs for future plans for the project's continued
mission.
INCOME ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATION, OHIO
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded under the Income Enhancement Demonstration Project for Northwest
Ohio.
Answer. The Federal funds support the Agricultural Business
Enhancement Center which plays a major role in the development of the
agricultural sector of Northwest Ohio. The Center provides a variety of
management training programs, helps farmers and other agribusinesses
develop comprehensive business plans, and facilitates business
networking. CSREES performs an annual merit review of this project.
Question. According to the research proposal, or principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
program?
Answer. The Center seeks to enhance the competitiveness of
agricultural firms in Northwest Ohio and create greater economic
opportunity for local residents. To be successful in business, farmers
and other agribusiness firms must be able to adapt to a large number of
major changes affecting the entire food system from the farmer to the
consumer. These include changes in farm programs, globalization of
markets, new technologies, information systems, consumers' concerns for
food safety and nutrition, and society's concern for protecting the
environment. Individuals, families, firms and communities in Northwest
Ohio need to understand the changes, develop and implement effective
strategies for dealing with change.
Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the project was to help people develop
new businesses and restructure and expand existing businesses in order
to enhance incomes in Northwest Ohio. The Agricultural Business
Enhancement Center conducts economic research on market opportunities,
provides a variety of management training programs, helps individual
farms and other agribusinesses develop comprehensive business plans,
and facilitates networking with businesses in other regions of the
United States and around the world. Recent accomplishments include the
following: A group of growers formed a cooperative and contracted with
the Ohio Turnpike Commission to operate farmers markets at rest stops;
farmers expanded their use of the national Internet Hay Exchange; sugar
beet grower associations are exploring the feasibility of reopening a
closed processing plant; Christmas tree growers worked together to
expand their market and increase sales; at an annual Women in
Agriculture forum, 61 percent said workshop participation would improve
management of the family farm, 78 percent would improve family
relations, and 28 percent would improve farm income; Master Gardener
volunteers were trained and provided over 6,000 hours to advise local
home gardeners.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The project began in 1991. Appropriations have been as
follows: $145,000 in fiscal year 1991; $250,000 per year in fiscal
years 1992 through 1995; and $246,000 per year in fiscal years 1996
through 2000. Appropriations to date total $2,375,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The State of Ohio has appropriated the following funds:
$35,100 in fiscal year 1991; $72,368 in 1992; $56,930 in 1993; $30,547
in 1994; $49,935 in 1995; $51,432 in 1996; $48,664 in 1997; $53,736 in
1998; and $56,186 in 1999.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The Agricultural Business Enhancement Center is located in
Bowling Green, Ohio and serves eight counties in the Toledo
Metropolitan Area. Project leadership is being provided by the
Department of Agricultural Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus,
Ohio.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1991 was for a period of 12
months, however, the ongoing needs of producers and agribusinesses to
adjust to major changes in the agricultural sector continues to provide
the Center with many challenges. The current phase of the program will
be completed in 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in February
1999. In that review it was noted that: ``The fiscal year 1999 proposal
is especially well done--for each of its 3 objectives, there are one or
more goals, and each goal has procedures and evaluation plans.''
Throughout the year, the project director completed evaluations which
clearly demonstrated the value of the project to citizens of Ohio.
INTEGRATED COW-CALF MANAGEMENT--IOWA
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded as CHIPS: Cow-Calf Integrated Resource Management Program.
Answer. CHIPS is an integrated cow-calf resource management program
that originally targeted an eleven county area in southeast Iowa. The
intent of the program is to impact the area's economy by maximizing the
profit potential of individual livestock operations. Program
technicians work one-on-one with participating beef operations,
utilizing a variety of management services designed to assist these
producers as enterprise decisions are made. The program has grown to
extend services to over 200 beef producers in over 60 Iowa counties.
Question. What is the national, regional or local need for this
program?
Answer. The agricultural economy of Iowa and surrounding states has
suffered over the past several years due primarily to low commodity
prices, especially corn, soybean, and hog enterprises. Selected areas
of Iowa have also been challenged with extreme weather conditions that
have impacted many beef operation current and long-term financial and
managerial decisions.
To address this rapidly changing agricultural infrastructure, the
program has adjusted its direction and focus to meet the management and
technical needs of Iowa beef producers. Program technicians and staff
work closely with participants to collect and analyze individual
operation data. This information is necessary as management
recommendations are developed to enhance the performance and economic
stability of the operation. This approach supports individual economic
survival as well as strengthening the local and regional economic
community.
The Iowa cattle industry is exploring strengthening its position by
building a new beef harvesting facility. This involves cooperation of
many industry representatives. If this effort becomes a reality, the
importance and need for such programs will continue to grow and expand.
Producers will need continued technical assistance and expanded
services as long-term decisions are made to supply a high quality,
source verified, environmentally sound product to consumers.
Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The overall goal of the program is to have a positive
effect on the area's economy by improving the long-term profit
potential of the local cattle industry. Objectives include improving
the understanding of producers about cow-calf production on highly
erosive land, providing intensive technical assistance to develop goals
and individualized farm recommendations and helping producers develop
management skills to improve efficiency and lower costs of production.
Over 220 cow-calf operations are to be involved in 2000.
Over the past several years, the program has expanded in
geographical area, clientele and technicians. The program has grown
from one technician and 11 counties in 1992 to seven technicians
providing services to over 60 counties in Iowa. These technicians serve
over 220 cooperators that manage over 18,000 beef cows.
During the 1998-99 fiscal years, technicians conducted over 1,330
farm and office visits. Numerous management areas were addressed during
these one-on-one contacts. Over 27,000 head of calves and beef cows
were weighed and over 4,000 breeding animals were permanently
identified. A total of 33 performance analysis records incorporating
financial and performance information were individually analyzed. More
than 560 forage and soil samples were collected and approximately 300
ration projections were developed for cooperators.
Networking projects are emphasized by the program. Examples include
the heifer development program, regional steer tests, educational
efforts in conjunction with the Iowa Beef Center, Iowa State University
Extension and the Iowa Quality Beef Program.
Question. How long has the program been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. $138,000 was approved for fiscal year 1992; $138,000 for
fiscal year 1993; $276,000 for fiscal year 1994; $350,000 for fiscal
year 1995; $345,000 for fiscal year 1996; $345,000 for fiscal year
1997; $300,000 per year in fiscal years 1998 and 1999; and $250,000 in
fiscal year 2000. Federal funding through fiscal year 2000 totals
$2,442,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Cooperators pay fees of approximately $3.00 per beef cow on
a sliding scale that adjusts for herd size. In fiscal year 1999,
approximately $47,000 in fees were collected.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The program is operated in six designated technician areas
in Iowa. Services and technical support are offered to producers in
approximately 60 Iowa counties.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The objectives and goals of the program have been modified
to meet the needs of cooperators and adjust to the rapidly changing
cattle industry. The program initially projected to address the
objectives in a three-year time frame. However, due to the expansion of
the program in both geographical area and cooperator numbers, services
and technical assistance have been modified to accommodate the numerous
changes experienced by the industry.
Over the past several years, the program has made considerable
progress in achieving its goals. Cooperators are utilizing more of the
data collection and record keeping programs that are offered. This data
collection process has been important as producers make long-term
decisions. The Iowa beef industry faces a challenging and exciting
time. With the beef harvest facility initiative underway, the support
and assistance offered to producers needs to be modified and adapted. A
three-year time frame for the development and initiation of the Iowa
Beef Network is expected.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The last annual review of this project was conducted by the
agency in May, 1999. This review was positive, with special note taken
of the expansion of the project to include a greater number of beef
producers, promotion of a sound business approach to on-farm record
keeping and management practices, and the efforts to extend this
knowledge to other beef producers of the State.
NATIONAL EDUCATION CENTER FOR AGRICULTURAL SAFETY, IOWA
Question. Please provide a description of the extension project
that has been funded under the National Education Center for
Agricultural Safety grant.
Answer. The mission of the National Education Center for
Agricultural Safety is to reduce the level of preventable illnesses,
injuries and fatalities among agricultural populations. The National
Education Center for Agricultural Safety serves farmers, ranchers,
their families and employees by providing hands-on training and
education programs at the Center. The center works in conjunction with
the ``Farmedic'' program and teaches agricultural families how to
handle farm emergencies by providing First on the Scene and First
Responder courses. It also provides training for rural firefighters and
paramedics who respond to rural emergencies.
The National Education Center for Agricultural Safety is located in
Peosta, Iowa on the Northeast Iowa Community College Campus. Phase Two
of the center's construction program has just been completed, allowing
the center to provide training in ``real life situations''. Experience
in handling grain bin entrapments, farm equipment entanglements, manure
pit rescues, tractor over-turns, livestock, and utility emergencies are
provided. Regularly scheduled training includes general First Aid and
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation courses.
The center has assisted local farmers and small corporations to
screen workers for employment health risks and conducts health
education programs on hearing conservation, skin cancer prevention and
prevention of swine confinement worker and animal health problems.
The center operates an 11,000 square foot facility that was funded
by the state of Iowa with matching private donations. The USDA grant
provides salaries and operating funds, corporate and private donations
provide needed programs and equipment. The National Safety Council and
Northeast Iowa Community College underwrite additional operational
costs not covered in the USDA grant or donations.
Question. According to the extension proposal, or the project
director, what is the national, regional and local need?
Answer. The project director believes this training to be of
national, regional, and local need. According to information compiled
by the National Safety Council, 800 farmers and ranchers died in farm
work incidents in 1998. Nearly 50 percent of these fatalities were
related to work with farm tractors and equipment. Many of the training
programs conducted at this new training center are focused on issues
related to safe machinery operations. Included are safe tractor
operation programs for youth and young adults and safety equipment
retrofitting of farm equipment in cooperation with farm machinery
manufacturers.
One common thread for most fatal injury incidents in U.S.
agriculture is that they are preventable. To prevent these serious
injuries and deaths, the National Education Center for Agricultural
Safety develops interactive training for the many at-risk audiences,
including senior farmers, children and youth, and farmers who work
part-time off the farm. These programs are offered in many local,
regional, and national settings and are aimed at increasing awareness
and knowledge about the hazards that impact farmers, ranchers, their
families, and their employees.
Question. What was the original goal of this training center and
what has been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original and continuing goal of this project is to
develop, implement and evaluate diverse training methods for meeting
the desired training objectives of at-risk agricultural audiences. For
example, the training center has developed and is currently testing the
feasibility of delivering agricultural safety and health information
over fiber optic systems in the Midwest. This training is designed for
firefighters and emergency medical service providers who respond to
farm chemical emergencies. By using a fiber optics delivery technology,
the training center is able to reach over 20,000 volunteer firefighters
and rescue personnel with the latest methods for mitigating farm
chemical and fertilizer fire, explosion and spill and leak emergencies.
The training center's 12 acre site is also now equipped with
confined spaces facility for delivering important hands-on training on
manure storage hazards and silo gas risks for U.S. dairy farmers. This
$60,000 private donation enables the center's staff to present real-
life scenarios about the risks associated with naturally-occurring
gases in production agriculture.
It should also be noted that many of the center's programs are
developed for safety professionals who work with farmers and ranchers
across the nation. These programs are designed for train the trainer
initiatives that greatly expand the education and training
opportunities for farm populations that would otherwise be at risk due
to the unavailability of effective training.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998
with an allocation of $195,000, and has remained at this level through
fiscal year 2000. The total appropriation to date has been $585,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-federal funds and sources of donations were as follows:
In 1998, non-federal funds included $450,000 state appropriation
dedicated to the construction of Phase II; and $75,000 of miscellaneous
donations and in-kind contributions received from Deere & Company,
Dupont Corporation, Double L Group, Ltd, Melroe Company, Dubuque Racing
Association and Theisen's Farm, Home and Auto, Inc. In 1999, non-
federal funds totaled $135,200 from the same sources as 1998 and
additional state, non-profit organizations and private sources.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Training and educational initiatives under this grant are
being conducted at the National Education Center for Agricultural
Safety, located on the campus of Northeast Iowa Community College in
Peosta, Iowa.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date of the original objectives
is approximately March 31, 2000. Many of these objectives have already
been met. Anticipated completion date of additional objectives is March
31, 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. A CSREES merit review of the project application and site
review were conducted in the spring of 1999. Another site visit is
scheduled for June 2000. The project will be completing its second
fiscal year on March 31, 2000. The National Education Center for
Agricultural Safety utilizes external farm safety and health evaluators
and two advisory committees to maintain its focus on the most pressing
issues affecting the safety and health of our nation's agricultural
populations.
Wisconsin-Stout's Northwest Wisconsin Manufacturing Outreach Center
with direct consultation and long-term in-plant assistance delivered
primarily through the efforts of university Project Managers. Direct
assistance may be delivered through Co-op students, staff of the
University of Wisconsin System, both two-and-four year institutions,
and Extension services; the Wisconsin Technical College System;
secondary schools; the private sector, professional societies, and
private consultants, or attendance at state or national seminars. The
project also draws on many other state resources to add expertise and
capacity to network facilitation and in-plant extension activities. The
project has undergone a merit review.
Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
program?
Answer. America's manufacturers continue to face tremendous global
competition. There are enormous pressures to improve the quality of
products; reduce the time consumed to bring new products to market; and
there remains an ever increasing demand to reduce the costs of
products. Currently there is a strong movement in manufacturing to use
speed-to-market combined with new product introduction as a tool to
obtain a competitive advantage. While high quality and cost
efficiencies continue to be mandatory commitments for today's
manufacturers, great value is now being placed on speed-to-market.
Large companies are not the only ones influenced by these trends. Small
and medium size manufacturers often supply directly to the market or
are vital elements of a supply chain. Hence, they must be able to
respond quickly to changing market conditions while continuously
improving productivity and product quality.
Question. What is the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The Manufacturing Technology Transfer program's principal
objective is the development of a competitive, secure manufacturing
base through the mechanism of industrial extension. The program
principally targets small and medium size manufacturers in rural
Wisconsin. This funding will: continue to provide valuable industrial
extension service to the target audience; support the continued
empirical development of an industrial extension model; and investigate
the use of new manufacturing technologies to support global
competitiveness of manufacturers. Productivity improvements were
reported by the companies showing impressive economic impact to the
region through client operations assessments and plant evaluations,
strategy development for continuous improvement, implementation of new
organizational and operational methods, implementation of new
manufacturing technologies, establishment of quality assurance/total
quality systems, establishment of ongoing training programs, on-site
instruction in new technologies, improved methods, and processes.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. This project has been underway since fiscal year 1992 and
was funded for $165,000 per year in fiscal years 1992 through 1995, and
for $163,000 in fiscal years 1996 through 2000 for a total of
$1,475,000.
Question. What is the source of and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. University of Wisconsin-Stout provides $24,367 as in kind
match. Funds from other state, University, and partner resources are
pooled with USDA funds to carry out the described efforts.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1992 was for a period of 12
months. However, the Manufacturing Technology Transfer Program was
developed as a continuously evolving industrial extension strategy for
serving the needs of the manufacturing community. The Manufacturing
Technology Transfer program is measured by success in meeting the
objectives of the past five years' proposals, including the delivery of
modernization assistance and development of an industrial extension
model. The current phase of the program will be completed in 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. To measure the success of the project, a client evaluation
process has been developed which includes an evaluation questionnaire.
Evaluations are performed both by program staff, and by an objective,
third-party survey house. Evaluations indicate significant forward
strides in job creation, new businesses, expanded productivity, and
enhanced international competitiveness. An agency evaluation of this
project was last performed by the Department of Commerce in 1999.
PILOT TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROJECTS, OKLAHOMA AND MISSISSIPPI
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded under the Oklahoma and Mississippi Technology Transfer Projects.
Answer. The original work involved the transfer of uncommercialized
technologies from Federal laboratories and universities to rural
businesses and communities. The objectives have evolved to providing
more one-on-one assistance to small manufacturers. This type of
assistance responds to the stated needs of the small manufacturing
community and fills a recognized gap in the existing service provider
community. This innovative and unique program has opened an entirely
new clientele base for Cooperative Extension, small rural manufacturers
in Oklahoma. This project has undergone a merit review.
The original project in Mississippi focused upon the exploration,
evaluation, development, and education/transfer of innovative
technologies throughout the state such as agribusinesses, rural
businesses and industries, communities, and local governments. In
Mississippi, these original goals are still the guiding principle of
the project. Specific objectives and activities of the project have
been modified as the project and new technologies have been invented
and introduced.
Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
program?
Answer. Manufacturing extension programs throughout the country
have identified one-on-one engineering technology assistance as a need
for small manufacturers as they attempt to become more competitive and
profitable. The Oklahoma Manufacturing Extension Partnership has
received national acclaim for its noteworthy and highly effective
partnership with the Land Grant University. This partnership was forged
in 1995 by the Technology Transfer Program and continues today as the
model Applications Engineering Program. As the Applications Engineering
Program has begun to address more of the manufacturing engineering
issues on a state-wide basis, the Technology Transfer Program has been
exploring new ways of providing technology assistance to the small
manufacturers. The Technology Transfer Program will begin augmenting
its manufacturing engineering and technology service with Advanced
Manufacturing Management Systems assistance to include: Resource
Planning and Control, Manufacturing Operations Costs Analysis and
Control, Manufacturing Process Simulation, and Electronic Commerce.
Question. What is the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The primary goal of these programs is to contribute to an
increase in business productivity, employment opportunities, and per
capita income by utilizing technology and information from Federal
laboratories, Rural Enterprises of Oklahoma, Inc. of Durant, Oklahoma;
Mississippi State Food and Fiber Center; Vocational-Technical Education
System; Center for Local Government Technology; Cooperative Extension
Service; and other university departments and non-campus agencies.
The original project in Mississippi focused upon the exploration,
evaluation, development, and education/transfer of innovative
technologies to various throughout the state such as agribusinesses,
rural businesses and industries, communities, and local governments. In
Mississippi, these original goals are still the guiding principle of
the project. Specific objectives and activities of the project have
been modified as the project and new technologies have been invented
and introduced.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Funding appropriated to date is as follows: $350,000 per
year in fiscal years 1984 and 1985; $335,000 in fiscal year 1986;
$333,000 per year in fiscal years 1987 through 1990; $331,000 per year
in fiscal years 1991 through 1995; and $326,000 per year in fiscal
years 1996 through 2000. Total appropriations is $5,652,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds?
Answer. Oklahoma State University and Mississippi State University
have provided considerable amounts of matching support from state funds
over the life of the project. Over the past four years, support has
included a significant portion of engineering faculty salaries as well
as the administrative support of county and district extension staff.
Mississippi State University has provided a considerable amount of
matching support from state funds each year of the project. Matching
funds have been at least equal to the amount of the Federal funds
provided for the project in the past 10 years. Matching funds have
included faculty salaries, technology equipment, travel, commodities,
and administrative support. Additional non-federal funds have been
provided.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work is being carried out at Mississippi State
University and Oklahoma State University and, more importantly, on the
shop floors of the small rural manufacturers. Work related to this
project is being carried out at the University, in some of
Mississippi's Community Colleges, on the Internet, and in every county
in Mississippi. Demonstrations, educational workshops, Internet access,
video-conferencing sessions, satellite conferences, and one-on-one
sessions have been conducted in businesses, local government offices,
Extension offices, schools, farms, and even homes where appropriate.
Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1984 was for 12 months. The
original objectives have been, and continue to be met. Although
individual client projects have a beginning and end, the technology
transfer process is continuous. Over the past years, specific and
measurable annual objectives and the achievement of objectives have
been documented in annual reports. The objectives of both programs have
been to continue the delivery of high-quality engineering assistance
and technology transfer services to small manufactures, conduct joint
workshops, client referral, and joint research and application
projects, and demonstrate a value of service to clients many times
project operating costs.
In Mississippi the original project contained objectives designed
to be completed in 12 months. However, the first year clearly
demonstrated that fully reaching objectives related to the transfer of
new technology not only takes longer to achieve, but becomes a never
ending process as the challenge is constantly changing as new
technologies are developed. The technology transfer process is an
extended and a continuous process. Over the past years, specific annual
objectives and activities have been set and achieved and have been
documented in annual reports. The objectives and activities of the
current project are designed to be completed in fiscal year 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Site visits and merit reviews have been conducted annually
on these projects as well as client surveys by project staff
themselves. Survey results have documented job creation, productivity
enhancement, and local community economic activity. The Technology
Transfer Program has impacted the integration of emerging technologies
that are benefitting the citizens, ranging from assisting small
businesses and industries in integrating new computer hardware and
software for conducting electronic commerce, to providing extensive on-
line information resources. The Technology Transfer Funds have served
as a catalyst for the development of a long range telecommunications
network plan for the total extension service to link all county
extension offices and research centers directly to the Mississippi
data/video backbone and provide access to the Internet.
Evaluation for the Technology Transfer Project in Mississippi has
been both formative and summative. The effectiveness of all project
activities is carefully reviewed and input is gathered from the
individuals who participate in the training sessions to determine if
the objectives of the project are being achieved. Evaluations of every
educational workshop and activity are conducted on a regular basis and
have consistently yielded outstanding marks. At the end of each year, a
careful review of project demonstrations/exhibits/presentations, as
well as the number of individual served, are reviewed. Perhaps the best
indicator of success has been the continued increase in the demand for
these technology-related activities. Also, Mississippi State University
Extension Service annually reviews its implementation of new
technologies to insure that these technologies are being utilized in
the most effective manner possible. This project has allowed the
Mississippi State University Extension Service to make significant
progress in educating the clientele it serves. No State Extension
Service provides more technology transfer education than Mississippi
for its personnel. This training equips our county personnel to be more
effective technology transfer educators and advisors to outside
clientele to the point where county personnel are now conducting their
own technology transfer training sessions. For example, Newton County
personnel have provided at least 10 workshops in the past year for
county clientele.
PILOT TECHNOLOGY PROJECT WISCONSIN
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded under the Wisconsin Pilot Technology Project.
Answer. Primary industrial extension activity of the Manufacturing
Technology Transfer program is the delivery of technical assistance to
manufacturing companies. Executive direction in determining the
assistance required will be provided by the University of Wisconsin-
Stout's Northwest Wisconsin Manufacturing Outreach Center with direct
consultation and long-term in-plant assistance delivered primarily
through the efforts of university Project Managers. Direct assistance
may be delivered through Co-op students, staff of the University of
Wisconsin System, both two-and-four year institutions, and Cooperative
Extension services; the Wisconsin Technical College System; secondary
schools; the private sector, professional societies, and private
consultants, or attendance at state or national seminars. The project
also draws on many other state resources to add expertise and capacity
to network facilitation and in-plant extension activities. The project
has undergone a merit review.
Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
program?
Answer. America's manufacturers continue to face tremendous global
competition. There are enormous pressures to improve the quality of
products; reduce the time consumed to bring new products to market; and
there remains an ever increasing demand to reduce the costs of
products. Currently there is a strong movement in manufacturing to use
speed-to-market combined with new product introduction as a tool to
obtain a competitive advantage. While high quality and cost
efficiencies continue to be mandatory commitments for today's
manufacturers, great value is now being placed on speed-to-market.
Large companies are not the only ones influenced by these trends. Small
and medium size manufacturers often supply directly to the market or
are vital elements of a supply chain. Hence, they must be able to
respond quickly to changing market conditions while continuously
improving productivity and product quality.
Question. What is the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The Manufacturing Technology Transfer program's principal
objective is the development of a competitive, secure manufacturing
base through the mechanism of industrial extension. The program
principally targets small and medium size manufacturers in rural
Wisconsin. This funding will: continue to provide valuable industrial
extension service to the target audience; support the continued
empirical development of an industrial extension model; and investigate
the use of new manufacturing technologies to support global
competitiveness of manufacturers. Productivity improvements were
reported by the companies showing impressive economic impact to the
region through client operations assessments and plant evaluations,
strategy development for continuous improvement, implementation of new
organizational and operational methods, implementation of new
manufacturing technologies, establishment of quality assurance/total
quality systems, establishment of ongoing training programs, on-site
instruction in new technologies, improved methods, and processes.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. This project has been underway since fiscal year 1992 and
was funded for $165,000 per year in fiscal years 1992 through 1995, and
for $163,000 per year in fiscal years 1996 through 2000 for a total of
$1,475,000.
Question. What is the source of and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. University of Wisconsin-Stout provides $24,367 as in kind
match. Funds from other state, University, and partner resources are
pooled with USDA funds to carry out the described efforts.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1992 was for a period of 12
months. However, the Manufacturing Technology Transfer Program was
developed as a continuously evolving industrial extension strategy for
serving the needs of the manufacturing community. The Manufacturing
Technology Transfer program is measured by success in meeting the
objectives of the past five years' proposals, including the delivery of
modernization assistance and development of an industrial extension
model. The current phase of the program will be completed in 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. To measure the success of the project, a client evaluation
process has been developed which includes an evaluation questionnaire.
Evaluations are performed both by program staff, and by an objective,
third-party survey house. Evaluations indicate significant forward
strides in job creation, new businesses, expanded productivity, and
enhanced international competitiveness. An agency evaluation of this
project was last performed by the Department of Commerce in 1999.
RANGE POLICY DEVELOPMENT, NEW MEXICO
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Range Policy Development grant.
Answer. The Range Policy Development project has collected local
economic data throughout the State. Local data have been used to
develop an economic model to help explain the relationships among local
economies and primary industries. The model enables policymakers to
better understand how local and State economies are tied to primary
industries, especially those industries that use public lands. The
initial focus of the project has been on the livestock grazing
industry.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. In New Mexico and throughout the western states, many local
economies are dependent on the use and management of public range and
forest lands. However, there exists a great deal of disagreement about
the true level of dependence of individual communities on these public
land-based industries and, consequently, disagreement about the local,
statewide, and regional impacts of public policies that alter the use
and management of these lands. Through better understanding of how
public lands impact local and regional economies, we now can predict
the outcomes of potential legislation or amended land use policies,
resulting in policies that enhance, rather than detract from, local
economies. The model was used to analyze the economic impacts of
rangeland reform. The Bureau of Land Management--BLM--and Governor's
State team chose to use the tool--Input/Output Model--and the method to
analyze the Resource Advisory Council--RAC, fall back, and county
alternatives for the State Environmental Impact Statement--EIS.
Question. What is the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The model has been requested by the U.S. Forest Service to
help improve Region 3 Land Use Plan amendments in response to newly
listed Threatened and Endangered Species. New Mexico is in the process
of developing detailed input-output models for each county, from local
and state tax revenue data. Economists are following up with workshops
across the state to present information from economic forecasts to
local decision makers. Further, the project calls for increasing the
utility of the models by expanding the scope of the database to include
oil, gas, cheese processing, dairy and food livestock industries in
addition to the grazing enterprises.
Question. How long has this work been under way and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. This project was initiated in December 1994. The total
appropriation for the project has been $1,162,240. The award of
$197,000 for 2000 has been made to allow completion of the analysis of
Draft EIS and Final EIS for BLM-U.S. Department of the Interior in
conjunction with the State of New Mexico. The document is a proposed
Statewide Resource Management Plan Amendment/Final EIS and is entitled
``New Mexico Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for
Livestock Grazing Management.''
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds to
support this project?
Answer. The project budget does not indicate any non-federal
support. However, Agricultural Research Stations in five other States
have economists currently working to expand upon the New Mexico
project, ultimately to build a regional model.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. According to the project director, most of the original
objectives of the first phase have been accomplished. The second phase
of the project was initiated September 15, 1999. This phase will
investigate the hypothesis that recreation--in particular, Federal land
based dispersed recreation--generates sufficient revenue to offset the
significant and now documented economic contributions of the
consumptive industries, such as range, forestry and mining, and crop
and livestock agriculture. Recreation expenditure patterns and economic
cycles will be investigated. Production agriculture and range livestock
are vital segments of rural economies. These sectors produce
sustainable long-term income and wealth and are the basis of the
customs and culture of rural economies. The anticipated completion date
is September 30, 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The proposal for continued funding underwent merit review
by an agency team of National Program Staff in May 1997, and a review
of progress to date was conducted by the project liaison in September
1997. The reviews focused on criteria including the relevance of the
project goals, the suitability of the proposed research methods, and
the extent of progress made toward addressing the goals of the project.
Both reviews found that phase one objectives had been met, and adequate
progress had been made toward the objectives of the second phase of the
project.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT, ALASKA
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded under the Rural Development, Alaska Project.
Answer. This program is being designed to assist technical
assistance delivery to distressed communities in Alaska. The grant has
not been distributed to date and no programmatic actions have occurred
to date.
Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Changes occurring in the management and utilization of
public lands and changes occurring in rural economies as a result of
global competition and changing market conditions need to be assessed
in terms of impacts on small and rural communities in distress.
Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished?
Answer. The original goal of this program was to improve technical
assistance to distressed Alaskan rural communities.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The work supported by this program began in fiscal year
2000 with an appropriation of $276,285.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. No non-federal funds have been provided for this project.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The work is to be carried out in rural communities in
Alaska.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original grant proposal has not been submitted to date.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. No program activities and no evaluation have been carried
out to date.
rural development through tourism, new mexico
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded under the Rural Economic Development Through Tourism--REDTT--
Project in New Mexico.
Answer. The Rural Economic Development Through Tourism Project
involves applied research and outreach focused on locally-based tourism
development strategies to enhance economic opportunity in small and
rural communities in New Mexico. Components of the agenda support
training of local leadership and tourism professionals, strategic
planning and market development, and technical assistance to
communities. Proposals submitted are submitted for internal review and
evaluation within the agency. Recommendations are presented to enhance
impact on regional and national agendas.
Question. What is the national, regional or local need for this
program?
Answer. This is an on-going pilot project to demonstrate the
effective development and implementation of applied research, training,
education, and technical assistance related to rural tourism as a
development strategy. The grant has demonstrated that a long-term
commitment of resources and activity can lead to effective development
of tourism resources and build new market opportunities and tourism
products for small communities. This project would provide an excellent
proposal for the Fund for Rural America.
Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished?
Answer. The applied research and outreach project was designed by
the State Cooperative Extension Organization to increase the ability of
the public sector to enhance economic opportunity for rural communities
through tourism development. A regional task force composed of
Extension professionals and community leaders from business, industry,
education, and government--local, state, and Federal--was developed to
guide and advise the development and implementation of locally-based
programming and research. The results include video training materials,
a public relations package, image studies and profiles, regional
tourism guides, development of tourism bus packages, festival planning
workshops, development of regional tours, and a mini-grants program for
tourism development.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 2000?
Response . In fiscal years 1992 through 1995 the amount of $230,000
per year was appropriated. The appropriation for fiscal years 1996-1977
was $227,000 per year; for fiscal year 1998 was $247,000; for fiscal
years 1999 and 2000, $280,000 per year. Total appropriated funds to
date is $2,181,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Fiscal year 1992 included $38,764 in state matching funds.
Fiscal years 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 included $39,360 per year of
state matching funds. Fiscal years 1997 and 1998 include $39,040 per
year state matching funds.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Applied research and outreach is being carried out through
New Mexico State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original completion date was September 30, 1993. The
original objectives of this research have been met. The additional
objectives being presented for the 1999 year will be completed by
September 30, 2000. Year 2000 proposal has not been submitted to date.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency evaluates the merit of research proposals as
they are submitted. No formal evaluation of this project has been
conducted. The principal investigators and project managers submit
annual reports to the agency to document impact of the project. Each
year, the project has demonstrated significant accomplishment in the
reports submitted. Impacts include significant increases in attendance
of local festivals, increase in number of tour bus visits to New
Mexico, training to over 700 tourism employees in the region, and
establishment of a number of new businesses. Agency evaluation of the
project includes peer review of accomplishments and proposal objectives
and targeted outcomes.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT, OKLAHOMA
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded under the Rural Development, Oklahoma Project.
Answer. This program provides financial and technical assistance to
small business to create and retain jobs in rural Oklahoma and to
stimulate the local economies. The program is carried out through
financial services, business incubators, problem-solving assistance to
small and medium-sized manufacturers and technical assistance to rural
small businesses. The program is expanding to include assistance to
rural small businesses to enter international trade. The program
continues to evaluate new products and processes that may result in new
industries or be applied to improve existing manufacturing processes.
The project has undergone a merit review.
Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The increased demand for small business financing and
technical assistance verifies the need for the program. Each year
financing secured for small businesses has significantly increased. The
demand for business incubators is also on the rise. Last year, Rural
Enterprises, REI agreed to manage two more business incubators bringing
the total REI-managed facilities to thirteen. Also, small businesses
continue to need access to technical and business management
assistance, worker training, and international trade assistance in
order to stay competitive in domestic and world markets.
Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished?
Answer. The original goal of the program was to create jobs in
rural Oklahoma by providing systematic access to improved technology,
training, financial and business management assistance. REI is a
Certified Development Corporation for the Small Business Administration
as well as a designated Certified Development Financial Institution. As
a result, REI has been successful in obtaining financing for
entrepreneurs and rural small businesses totaling $119,060,129. Special
technical assistance efforts have included problem-solving assistance
to small manufacturers; training and dissemination of information on
ISO9000 to assist rural businesses compete with a global market;
providing manufacturers with a ``Quick View Assessment'' program which
enables manufacturers to compare their facilities and operations with
other companies across the United States; and working one-on-one with
small businesses providing on-site assistance with inventory control,
cash flow management, and marketing.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Appropriations to date are as follows: $433,000 per year in
fiscal years 1988-89; $430,000 in fiscal year 1990; $431,000 in fiscal
year 1991, $300,000 per year in fiscal years 1992-95; $296,000 per year
in fiscal years 1996-97; $150,000 per year in fiscal years 1998-2000.
Appropriations total $3,969,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. No non-federal funds have been provided for this project.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work is being carried out at Rural Enterprises, Inc.,
REI in Durant, Oklahoma.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1988 was for a period of 12
months. However, the objectives of Rural Enterprises, Inc. are on-going
because of the nature of the activity. The clientele is diverse and
decentralized. The engineering and management consultation model being
pursued with individual clients results in a situation where hundreds
of problems are being pursued simultaneously and when solved are
replaced by new issues resulting from international competition,
regulations, training needs, and changeover costs. The next phase of
the program will be completed in fiscal year 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. REI itself conducts an on-going evaluation process to
measure the organization's effectiveness and efficiency in
accomplishing its objectives and this is documented on a quarterly
basis through our reporting system. Over 6,000 jobs have been created
and retained for new and expanding businesses as a result of this
program. While the program has met its key objective of job creation in
rural Oklahoma, the nature of its outreach effort continues to evolve
and change as business sustainability and profitably confront new
challenges within small and rural communities.
RURAL REHABILITATION, GEORGIA
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded under the Rural Rehabilitation project in Georgia.
Answer. The program has tested the feasibility of providing
satellite-based adult literacy education, in association with
vocational rehabilitation services, to handicapped adults in rural
Georgia. The program has developed curriculum, tested and adapted
technology, established student recruitment and retention strategies,
expanded to Statewide coverage, and provided successful adult literacy
education.
Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
program?
Answer. A state task force has estimated that 25 percent of
Georgia's adult population is functionally illiterate. Functional
illiteracy is regarded in Georgia as a form of disability. The extent
of adult functional illiteracy is similar throughout much of rural
America.
Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this program was to prove that
distance learning can be an effective tool for reaching and teaching
functionally illiterate adults in rural areas. This program has
demonstrated that satellite-based literacy training, in cooperation
with vocational rehabilitation services, can successfully provide adult
literacy education designed to improve critical reading, writing, and
thinking skills, for handicapped rural adults. Over the past 9 years,
test scores and attendance and completion rates of students in the
satellite-based program have shown that distance learning is an
effective delivery system for instructing low-level readers and non-
readers. Test scores and attendance rates of students in this program
have been comparable to those of students in traditional, urban
classes. The project is currently working to perfect a process for
internet based instruction and student assessment.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Funding for this program was initially appropriated in
fiscal year 1989, and the program has been in operation since March
1989. Through fiscal year 2000, appropriations for this program have
been as follows: $129,000 in fiscal year 1989; $256,000 in fiscal years
1990, 1991, and 1992; $250,000 in fiscal years 1993, 1994, and 1995;
and $246,000 in fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 for a
total of $2,877,000.
Question. What is the source of and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The fiscal year 1998 source of non-federal funds provided
for this program are state appropriated funds from the Georgia
Department of Adult Education. Prior years sources also included
private contributions from the Woodruff Foundation and other local
foundations. Through fiscal year 1998, the total amount of non-federal
funds provided the project has been $8,006,901. The breakdown by fiscal
year is: $164,000 in fiscal year 1988; $270,500 in fiscal year 1989;
$809,675 in fiscal year 1990; $656,765 in fiscal year 1991; $65,000 in
fiscal year 1992; $1,019,821 in fiscal year 1993; $20,000 in fiscal
year 1994; $872,500 in fiscal year 1995; $1,500,000 in fiscal year
1996; $1,319,320 in fiscal year 1997; and $1,309,320 in fiscal year
1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The Georgia Tech Satellite Literacy Project is sponsored
and operated by four organizations: Georgia Institute of Technology's
Center for Rehabilitation Technology, the Center for Rehabilitation
Technology, Inc., Literacy Action, Inc., and the Georgia Department of
Technical and Adult Education. The program grantee is CRT, Inc., a
private, not-for-profit business advisory board to the Center for
Rehabilitation Technology, College of Architecture, Georgia Institute
of Technology, from which the literacy instruction has been provided.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. It was anticipated that it would take 3 years to
demonstrate that distance learning can be an effective tool for
reaching and teaching functionally illiterate adults in rural areas.
That original objective was met in Fiscal 1991. Additional objectives
since fiscal year 1991 have been to expand the outreach of the
satellite based adult literacy program to enough additional sites
throughout the State of Georgia so that all potential participants have
reasonable access to the program, and to continually upgrade the
quality of class programming and the technical capacities of the
system. The fiscal year 1997 technological upgrades expanded the
capacity of the program more than 25-fold, from 77 to over 2,000
downlink sites, and a six-fold increase in broadcast hours, and made
materials available as supplemental tools to all Georgia literacy
classes. As of December 1997, the Georgia Tech Satellite Literacy
Program is in a period of transition from that of providing literacy
instruction via direct television broadcasts to classrooms to that of
development and dissemination of technology-based instructional aids.
The project has been renamed the Lifelong Learning Network, or LNN.
This change is being made based upon the request of the major sponsor,
the Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education, Office of
Adult Literacy. The LNN will develop and produce video-based
instructional supplements, technology-based curriculum and training for
adult literacy practitioners, and multi-media projects for literacy
students.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency receives annual reports on the project that are
used, together with agency merit review, to assess its progress. Based
on these reports, the agency has found that the project has made steady
progress in demonstrating the feasibility of utilizing distance
learning technology and teaching methods to provide adult literacy
education programs to handicapped adults throughout the State of
Georgia. The project has been successful in applying the latest
distance education technology to both control the program cost per
participant and, most recently, to expand the availability of the
program.
WOOD BIOMASS, NEW YORK
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Wood Biomass Grant?
Answer. The objective of this project is to expand, implement, and
gain acceptance of short rotation woody crop biomass as a sustainable,
renewable and environmentally friendly fuel source and as a feedstock
for conversion into biobased industrial products. In addition, the
project is supporting the promotion of low value fiber from the
Nation's Central and Northern Hardwood forests regions.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researchers hypothesize that the project is
of national interest. Biomass research studies through the U.S.
Departments of Agriculture and Energy span 20 or more years. This work
clearly demonstrates that the nation is in a position to scientifically
produce environmentally affable fuels for power generation systems and
other biobased industrial products. Except for co-generation plants,
the current cost of conventional power supply fuels currently precludes
the wholesale adoption of this technology. Complementing the planned
fuel supply are many sidebar benefits including carbon offsets and
sequestration, rural economic development, wildlife habitat, and
reduction in soil erosion sedimentation and non-point source pollution
associated with conventional agriculture. Valuing these and other
products will make the economics of the system much more attractive.
The applied research on the production system will be applicable across
the Northeastern and Midwestern United States. Knowledge gained and
lessons learned during the project will be applicable to similar
projects across the country. The project is awarded non-competitively,
but it is annually subjected to a CSREES Merit Review.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this project is to promote, through applied
research and technology transfer, wood biomass as a sustainable wood
supply for (1) power generation and other biobased industrial products,
(2) alternative farm products, (3) wise stewardship of land resources,
and (4) enhanced farm profitability.
To accommodate these goals, scientists at the State University of
New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry--SUNY-ESF--are
planting willow trials and demonstration areas on several sites. Site
preparation trials--including the use of cover crops, reduced tillage
practices, and different herbicide regimes--and planting has occurred
on several locations. Cornell University, a partner institution in the
project, has hired a technology transfer specialist to coordinate
educational activities resulting from this work. Common events include
field days, news articles, presentations, tours of the demonstration
farms, and exhibits.
Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
Answer. This aspect of the program began with an appropriation of
$200,000 in fiscal year 1995. An additional $197,000 was appropriated
by the Congress for fiscal years 1996 through 2000. This sums
$1,185,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Four state partners and approximately 18 private partners
contribute resources at a ratio of nearly 1.5 to 1 for this project.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The fieldwork is being conducted on private and state land
near Syracuse, New York. Electronic and print media allows Cornell's
and SUNY-ESF's technology transfer activities to extend far beyond that
point. Presentations have been made at international, national, and
regional conferences and workshops. Numerous presentations have been
made to local groups across the northeastern United States. The
demonstration farms established under this project have been toured
regularly by visitors from across the country and around the world.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project. Have those objectives been met? What is the
completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The completion date for the original objectives of the
project, willow cultivar planting was September 30, 1996. With the
addition of some new dimensions to the project and the need to monitor
the plots through the first growing cycle of 4 years, the completion
date is now 2003. Because of the timing of one of the fiscal awards,
some weather related problems and some land contract problems, all of
the original objectives have not been met. Most of the unmet objectives
should be completed in 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of the project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. A field review of the project was conducted on August 20-
21, 1997. Excerpts from the review report include (1) positive
accolades for their quarterly progress reports, (2) positive accolades
for the outreach program being conducted by Cornell University, (3)
praise for the scientific outreach by the principal investigators, (4)
praise for connecting the willow biomass program to the poultry waste
and riparian issues in New York state, and (5) praise for gaining the
acceptance of willow biomass as an agricultural crop for state property
tax purposes. On the concern side CSREES' project administrator flagged
the delay in establishing the demonstration farm and requested
diligence in bringing this aspect of the project to fruition.
Subsequent reports from the project reveal that this aspect has been
satisfactorily addressed. In addition to the above, the project is
annually reviewed by the Salix (willow) Consortium.
FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE--NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE
Question. The Administration identifies a portion of the National
Research Initiative (NRI) as part of the President's Food Safety
Initiative. Please provide the total amount of funding made available
through the NRI for Food Safety Initiative research in each of the past
three fiscal years. Provide a brief description of the research work/
project funded in each of these years and how it is contributing to
meeting the goals of the President's food safety initiative, the amount
of funding provided for the project, who is carrying out the work, and
when the research work will be completed.
Answer. The NRI awarded funds for Food Safety Initiative research
in fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999 via the Ensuring Food Safety
Program. The primary objective of this program is to increase our
understanding of disease-causing microorganisms, their products, and
naturally occurring toxicants in meats, poultry, seafood, and fresh
fruits and vegetables. In fiscal year 1999, in response to increased
funding, the NRI added the Epidemiological Approaches for Food Safety
Program to provide the opportunity and the large grant amounts needed
for epidemiologic/population studies on the farm or anywhere along the
food production continuum. The NRI awarded a total of $2.5 million in
1997, $2.9 million in 1998, and $11.1 million in 1999 for food safety
research. Of the $11.1 million awarded in fiscal year 1999, $4.1
million were awarded in the Ensuring Food Safety Program, $5.3 million
were awarded in the Epidemiological Approaches for Food Safety Program,
and the remaining $1.7 million were awarded for food safety research
under other NRI programs. A brief description of each project funded by
the NRI food safety programs in the past 3 fiscal years, including
amount awarded, principal investigator--PI--and institution receiving
the award, duration of the award, and a short project description,
follows.
1999 Awards, epidemiological approaches for food safety:
Microbial Contamination of Produce: A Field Study in the Lower Rio
Grande Valley, Texas, $416,572, 3 years, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, C. Moe (PI). This study will look at farming and shipping
practices on approximately 12 farms in the lower Rio Grande Valley of
Texas with 3 vulnerable produce groups that are minimally processed and
eaten raw--leaf lettuce/spinach, parsley/basil, green onions. Key
agricultural practices where contamination may occur will be identified
by measuring the microbial quality of produce at each step. Sources of
fecal contamination will be determined.
Risk factors for Salmonella and Campylobacter infections and drug
resistance in dairy cattle, $765,447, 3 years, Michigan State
University, J. Kaneene (PI). This is a 3 year longitudinal study of 130
dairy herds to (1) identify the patterns of occurrence and shedding of
Salmonella species and Campylobacter jejuni and associated risk factors
on dairy farms in midwest and northeast. This study will also evaluate
the relative sensitivity and specificity of different sampling
frequencies; determine susceptibility profiles to a number of
antimicrobial agents; compare conventional and organic dairy farms; and
determine molecular mechanisms involved in reduced susceptibility and
the development of resistance.
Ecologic Assessment of Salmonella Enteritidis va typhimurium in a
dairy milk shed, $600,000, 3 years, University of California, Davis, W.
Sischo (PI). This study will monitor changes in S. typhimurium isolated
from two county dairy milk sheds--400,000 dairy cattle--in central
California and identify the genetic variants of these isolates. It will
also determine spatial pattern of variants and assess the pathogen,
environment, and management factors associated with persistent dairy
herd infection. Included in this study is the determination of genetic
and phenotypic diversity of human and bovine sources and the spatial
and temporal dynamics of human and bovine sources.
Ecology of antimicrobial resistance of enteric Salmonella and
E.coli in cattle operations, $771,868, 3 years, The Ohio State
University, T. Wittum (PI). This study will describe the on-farm
ecology of Salmonella species and E.coli antimicrobial resistance
patterns in intensively managed cattle operations. It will monitor
dairy and feedlot cattle operations and identify patterns of
antimicrobial use and other factors.
Effect of water chlorination on prevalence of E.coli O157:H7 and
Campylobacter in feedlot cattle, $325,528, 2 years, Washington State
University, T. Besser (PI). This study will chlorinate the water
supplies of 32 pens of feedlot cattle in two feedlots through the
feeding period and compare the infection rate in these cattle to that
of 32 pens of cattle consuming non-chlorinated water. It will also
evaluate the effect of chlorination on water consumption and weigh
gains.
New methods for risk analysis of infectious animal diseases
affecting food safety, $359,515, 2 years, Colorado State University, M.
Salman (PI). This study's goal is to refine existing and developing new
methodologies to allow for better risk analyses of foodborne diseases.
It will compare different current approaches, develop new models and
will validate these methods using two diseases as modules.
Molecular epidemiology of Salmonella transmission in swine
production systems, $885,294, 3 years, University of Illinois, R.
Weigel (PI). The goal of this research is to identify critical control
points for interventions to reduce Salmonella infection in modern swine
production facilities. Specifically, it will identify reservoirs for
Salmonella in ecosystems; characterize these isolates genetically;
identify the degree of genetic diversity in different reservoirs;
identify changes in genetic diversity over time; and use ecological and
genetic information to infer probable modes of transmission. Eight
large, multi-site modern swine production systems will be studied over
15 months.
Following Resistant Salmonella through the food chain: a molecular
ecology approach, $814,564. 3 years, University of Georgia, J. Maurer
(PI). This study will identify the diverse integron classes and their
drug resistance genes in the chicken microflora and characterize their
respective bacterial hosts. This study will follow transmission of the
genes and integrons throughout the food chain. Samples will be taken
from poultry at the hatchery, flock house, and the processing plant.
Dynamics of Campylobacter transmission on poultry farms, $384,284 3
years, The Ohio State University, Q. Zhang (PI). This study will
attempt to elucidate the sources of Campylobacter infection in broiler
chickens and examine the host and environmental factors that affect the
transmission of the organism on broiler farms. It will identify
potential sources and routes of transmission, the affect of immune
status and the environment, and assess the effect of both vertical and
horizontal transmission.
1999 Awards, ensuring food safety:
Irradiation in a Combination Approach to Enhance Vegetable Safety,
$128,000, 2 Years, Chapman University, A. Prakash (PI). This study will
determine the optimum levels of irradiation, modified atmosphere
packaging--MAP, and chlorination that will enhance safety while
preserving sensory attributes such as texture, color, and flavor in
selected vegetables, including shredded iceberg lettuce and shredded
cabbage. The project is expected to reveal the efficacy of combination
processing to address the emerging safety issues associated with
minimally processed vegetables.
Recalcitrance of Clostridium perfringens to High Hydrostatic
Pressure Processing, $95,000, 2 Years, University of Delaware, D.G.
Hoover (PI). The goal of this study is to obtain an accurate assessment
of the response of the foodborne pathogen, Clostridium perfringens, to
high hydrostatic pressure in order to better understand the mechanism
of inactivation and identify those controllable factors most important
in protection of this pathogen from the effects of high pressure
processing in foods. A novel technology, high pressure processing of
foods offers U.S. agriculture a commercially-viable non-thermal means,
i.e., ``cold pasteurization'', for the processing of foods and
beverages resulting in longer shelf-life and improved safety while
maintaining sensory characteristics and nutrient content nearly
identical to fresh or raw products.
Are Virulent Strain-Specific DNA Sequences of Vibrio vulnificus
Essential For Virulence? $150,000, 2 Years, University of Florida, P.A.
Gulig (PI). Vibrio vulnificus is the leading cause of death in the U.S.
associated with consumption of shellfish. This study will examine the
relationship of virulent strain-specific DNA sequences to the disease
process by determining if genes encoded on virulent strain-specific
genomic sequences are essential for virulence, or if they are only
markers for virulence by coincidence. By identifying virulence genes,
we will contribute to understanding how this devastating food-borne
pathogen can kill humans so rapidly after consumption of contaminated
sea food. This information could be integrated into CDC, FDA, and State
efforts to determine the epidemiology of infections and to develop
interventions to reduce risk of V. vulnificus disease.
Inactivation of Pathogens on Alfalfa Seeds, $114,319, 2 Years,
University of Georgia, L.R. Beuchat (PI). The overall goal of this
research is to develop a procedure to kill E. coli O157:H7 and
Salmonella on alfalfa seeds without reducing the ability of the seeds
to germinate and produce sprouts. Information gained from this research
will be valuable in developing strategies to eliminate E. coli O157:H7
and Salmonella from alfalfa seeds as well as other seeds intended for
sprout production, thus greatly minimizing the risk of illness
associated with eating of raw seed sprouts.
Improving Pathogen Decontamination Treatments for Fresh Produce,
$185,000, 2 Years, University of Georgia, J.F. Frank (PI). This project
will determine strategies for removing or inactivating pathogenic
bacteria at protected locations on the surfaces of fresh produce. Such
strategies will involve application of sanitizing agents containing
food grade solvents or surfactants that may penetrate to protected
sites and provide an effective decontamination treatment. Results of
this research will provide basic information necessary for the
commercial development of fresh produce decontamination treatments.
Genetic Markers and Pathogenesis Features of Listeria monocytogenes
serotype 4b, $220,000, 3 Years, University of Hawaii, S. Kathariou
(PI). Listeria monocytogenes is a troublesome food-borne bacterial
pathogen because of its ubiquitous distribution, its ability to grow in
refrigerated foods, and its involvement in severe and often fatal
illness--listeriosis. Serotype 4b is of special interest, being
involved in almost all common-source outbreaks of listeriosis and in
numerous sporadic cases. This study will complete the molecular
characterization of two gene clusters unique to serotype 4b strains in
order to identify DNA-based diagnostic reagents for this serotype. This
research may yield novel molecular reagents that will facilitate
monitoring and detection of clinically important strains of Listeria
monocytogenes.
Identifying Factors that Promote Clearance of E. coli O157:H7 From
Cattle, $265,000, 2 Years, University of Idaho, C.H. Bohach (PI). This
research will test the hypothesis that cattle diet and colonic cell
proliferation may be used in pre-harvest interventions to promote the
clearance of E. coli O157:H7 from the gastrointestinal tract of cattle.
This research directly contributes to the USDA NRI Food Safety program
goals of decreasing the incidence of food-borne illness by increasing
our understanding of the ecology of E. coli O157:H7.
Molecular Mechanisms of Psychrotrophy in Listeria monocytogenes,
$253,000, 3 Years, Illinois State University, B.J. Wilkinson (PI). The
proposed research aims to: (1) increase our understanding of an
important foodborne psychrotrophic--cold-growing--pathogen and how it
resists the food preservation strategy of chilling; and (2) provide the
scientific basis for improved control strategies for Listeria
monocytogenes. The investigators are studying the membrane fluidity of
the organism and the genes and proteins involved in its growth of at
low temperatures.
Molecular Biology of Fumonisin Biosynthesis in Gibberella
fujikuroi, $100,000, 2 Years, Purdue University, C.P. Woloshuk (PI).
Fumonisins are toxins produced in corn by the fungus Gibberella
fujikuroi. Evidence has linked fumonisin with cancer in humans. With
the likelihood of fumonisin concentrations being regulated world wide,
the impact on the U.S. food industry will be substantial. The long-
range goals of this research are to understand fumonisin biosynthesis
and to develop novel approaches for eliminating fumonisin contamination
of food sources.
Ecological Distribution of E. coli O157:H7 Strains in Agricultural
Environments, $210,000, 2 Years, Kansas State University, J.M. Sargeant
(PI). The goal of this project is to determine the distribution of
genetically-identified E. coli O157:H7 isolates in agricultural
environments, as a means to identifying the sources of infection for
cattle. This information will allow for the development of land
management and water-use practices and policies for the control and/or
reduction in the overall prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in agricultural
food products.
Characterization of Multiple Fluoroquinolone Resistance Among
Bacterial Pathogens, $157,000.00, 2 Years, U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, D.G. White (PI). The objectives of this project are to:
(1) Characterize the genetic resistant determinants responsible for
fluoroquinolone resistance among veterinary isolates of E. coli and
Salmonella spp.; (2) Determine if veterinary fluoroquinolone use
selects for bacterial isolates that are cross resistant to human
therapeutic fluoroquinolones; and (3) Determine if the emergence of
fluoroquinolone resistance among veterinary and foodborne bacterial
pathogens is genetically related. The data will determine if there are
potential public health implications regarding the use of
fluoroquinolones in animals in the U.S.
Detection of Viable Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli using
Polymerase Chain Reaction and RNA-based Polymerase Chain Reaction,
$111,000, 2 Years, Mississippi State University, M.A. Drake (PI). This
project will develop methodologies to rapidly detect viable
enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli--EHEC. The methods will be applied
to artificially-contaminated ground beef samples. The development of
nucleic acid based methodologies to detect viable EHEC will be
applicable to other foodborne pathogens and will provide a more rapid
option for monitoring food safety.
Extrusion Processing as a Means of Reducing Fusarium Mycotoxins in
Cereal Foods, $128,000, 2 Years, University of Nebraska, L.B. Bullerman
(PI). Toxin producing Fusarium molds pose major food safety hazards by
invading corn and wheat in the field and producing their toxins in the
grain. The goal of this research is to find the optimum conditions of
extrusion processing which will destroy and reduce the amounts of
deoxynivalenol, zearalenone, and fumonisins in contaminated corn and
wheat under simulated industrial conditions to render the processed
grain-based foods free of these toxins. This project will contribute to
the safety of the food supply by improving the safety of cereal-based
foods.
A Membrane Fluidity Model for Sensitivity of Foodborne Pathogens to
Preservatives, $230,405, 3 Years, Rutgers, the State University of New
Jersey, T.J. Montville (PI). There is poor understanding of how
Listeria monocytogenes, a food poisoning bacteria, survives in cold
hostile environments once thought to kill bacteria or at least prevent
them from growing. The cell membrane is the barrier that protects food
poisoning bacteria from preservatives and the environment. This
research determines how membrane properties regulate the sensitivity of
the bacteria to preservatives, acidity, and cold. A better
understanding of how the bacteria survive our attempts to kill them
will provide new concepts that can be used to increase the
effectiveness of current preservatives and processes, and thus, improve
food safety.
Specific Detection and Typing of Vibrio parahaemolyticus serotype
O3:K6, $110,065, 2 Years, Cornell University, K.J. Boor (P.I.). The
goal of this research is to enhance the safety of seafood consumed in
the U.S. by developing a rapid strategy for detecting pathogenic V.
parahaemolyticus in foods, specifically focusing on serotype O3:K6
strains. The ability to distinguish between potentially dangerous
isolates and the more prevalent nonvirulent vibrios will provide
critically important tools that will allow public health workers to
develop scientifically based guidelines for identifying water sources
more likely to cause infection.
Novel Strategies for Determining Thermal Destruction of
Mycobacterium paratuberculosis, $87,784, 2 Years, Cornell University,
K.C. Sasahara (PI). The American dairy industry annually loses $120
million to Johne's disease, an incurable bacterial infection in cattle.
Infected cattle shed Mycobacterium paratuberculosis into milk and
feces, posing a possible health risk to humans. Although pasteurization
of raw milk kills most spoilage and pathogenic microorganisms,
isolation of M. paratuberculosis from humans suffering from Crohn's
disease, an incurable inflammatory bowel disease with clinical symptoms
similar to Johne's disease, suggests a possible causal relationship. To
better establish whether M. paratuberculosis cells are killed by
pasteurization, the investigator will develop a strategy for screening
for the presence of M. paratuberculosis in raw and processed milk. This
project will establish specific heat treatment parameters for the
destruction of M. paratuberculosis and develop a rapid detection method
to improve dairy herd health management.
Transmission of Listeria monocytogenes in Food Systems, $192,000, 3
Years, Cornell University, M. Wiedmann (PI). This project is designed
to better understand the characteristics of different Listeria
monocytogenes subtypes and to gain a better understanding of which
specific L. monocytogenes subtypes cause human disease and how these
types differ from those that cannot cause human disease. The
investigators will comprehensively characterize L. monocytogenes
isolates from humans, animals, and foods using both DNA fingerprinting
methods and methods for evaluating a strain's ability to cause disease.
This work will ultimately contribute to the development of science-
based food safety regulations that economically meet public health
needs.
Modeling Bacterial Pathogen/Biocontrol Competition With Changing
Temperature, $117,369, 2 Years, USDA-Agricultural Research Service;
North Carolina State University, F. Breidt (PI). This project will
develop models for the growth and death of two or more competing
microorganisms during changing environmental conditions. The computer
simulations and mathematical models being developed will be used
primarily as tools to investigate the mechanisms of microbial
competition. It is hoped that the principles learned in these studies
can be applied to the prediction and prevention of the growth of
disease causing bacteria in a variety of foods.
A Salmonella-based Vaccine to Prevent E. coli O157:H7 Infection in
Cattle, $200,000, 2 Years, North Carolina State University, S.J. Libby
(PI). In this study, investigators will use several live, attenuated
vaccine strains of Salmonella expressing important surface proteins of
E.coli O157:H7 to vaccinated calves. Vaccination of calves with
Salmonella strains expressing surface proteins of E.coli O157:H7 will
engender a mucosal immune response. By stimulating mucosal immunity, it
is hoped that the E.coli O157:H7 will not have an opportunity to
colonize the lower bowel of the calves. The reduction or elimination of
E.coli O157:H7 from these vaccinated animals well be determined. Means
to significantly reduce or eliminate E.coli O157:H7 from cattle will
ensure a safer food supply.
Characterization of Genes Regulating Aflatoxin Biosynthesis,
$220,000, 3 Years, North Carolina State University, G.A. Payne (PI).
Aflatoxins are toxic and carcinogenic compounds produced in food by the
fungus Aspergillus flavus. Contamination often occurs before harvest
and no effective control procedures are available. The goal of this
research is to understand the factors that regulate aflatoxin
biosynthesis such that plant gene products or synthesized compounds can
be employed to inhibit aflatoxin formation.
Development and Validation of Instruments to Evaluate Food Safety
Education, $200,000, 2 Years, The Ohio State University, L. Medeiros
(PI). Consumer education about the basic principles of food safety is
an important component of preventing foodborne illnesses. Impact is
difficult to document because of a lack of valid and reliable
evaluation instruments. The goal of this project is to develop and
validate an instrument that is suitable for evaluation of food safety
educational programs for low-income, low-literacy audiences.
Optical Biosensor Detection of Food Pathogens Based On Direct
Measurement of Antibody/Antigen Binding, $180,000, 2 Years, University
of Rhode Island, A.G. Rand (PI). The demands from consumers for fresh,
less processed food has increased the need to ensure microbial safety
of these products. This project provides the opportunity for a
multidisciplinary effort to create specific biosensors for rapid and
early detection of pathogen contamination. These devices have the
potential for specifically selecting food pathogens from among the
total microbial load within minutes and measuring the concentration as
real-time analysis on site.
Evalution of Jenseniin G as a Potential Food Preservative, $90,000,
2 Years, Clemson University, S. Baker (PI). Bacteriocins, proteins
produced by some bacteria which kill other bacteria, offer a defense
against some foodborne pathogens. Currently, nisin is the only approved
bacteriocin for use in foods in the United States. The development of
additional bacteriocins for use as food preservatives is needed in the
event organisms develop resistance to nisin or for use in foods in
which nisin is ineffective. Jenseniin G, a bacteriocin produced by
Propionibacterium jensenii, inhibits the outgrowth of the causative
agent of botulism and is heat and pH stable. The objectives of this
study are to increase the number of organisms which are sensitive to
jenseniin G, characterize the mode of action of jenseniin G, and
produce large amounts of jenseniin G.
Mechanism of Pathogen Survival During Microwave Thermalization,
$123,000, 2 Years, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University,
J. Eifert (PI). It has been reported that microorganisms are more
likely to survive in foods cooked using microwaves than foods cooked
using conventional methods. This project will determine the mechanism
of microorganism survival during microwave heating; determine the role
of fat in the food product on inactivation of the microorganisms; study
the effect of the presence or absence of steam on inactivation of the
microorganisms; and develop mathematical models to describe the cooking
process in the microwave oven in the presence or absence of steam. This
research will result in procedures that can be used to develop
microwave-heating procedures that will increase food safety.
Molecular Characterization of the Campylobacter jejuni Adhesin to
Fibronectin, $195,000, 3 Years. Washington State University, M.E.
Konkel (PI). The ultimate goal of this study is to develop intervention
and control methods to reduce the number of cases of human
campylobacteriosis caused by Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter
coli. Most cases of campylobacteriosis are sporadic in nature,
resulting from the consumption of Campylobacter-contaminated chicken,
unpasteurized milk, and unchlorinated water. The proteins that mediate
the binding of C. jejuni to host cells are termed adhesins. The goal of
this project is to further characterize one C. jejuni adhesin termed
CadF, for Campylobacter adhesin to fibronectin. CadF may be useful as a
vaccine candidate.
1998 Awards, ensuring food safety:
Rapid Detection of Brevetoxin and Ciguatoxin Using Recombinant Na+
Channels, $90,000, 2 Years, University of South Alabama College of
Medicine, S.D. Critz (PI). Contamination of shellfish by a marine toxin
known as brevetoxin periodically threatens the health and safety of
seafood consumers. This proposal will develop rapid and sensitive
methods to test for brevetoxin and ensure seafood product safety.
Role of Putative Pathogenicity Island in Campylobacter jejuni
Virulence, $190,000, 3 Years, University of Arizona, L.A. Joens (PI).
The goal of this study is to evaluate genes contained within a putative
pathogenicity island in C. jejuni for their role in virulence. Genes
within this island may be influential in defining the pathogenicity of
the agent that will lead to control measures for decreasing the
incidence of campylobacteriosis.
Strategies to Eliminate and Prevent Microbial Contamination of Food
Products, $70,000, 1 Year, University of Arkansas for Medical Science,
C.M. Compadre (PI). The ultimate goal of this research is to develop
effective methods to control, eliminate, and prevent microbial
contamination of food products. The specific aims of this project are:
to determine the effectiveness of the chemical cetylpyridinium chloride
for decontamination of fresh fruits and vegetables.
Bacteria for Competitive Exclusion of Salmonella enterica Species
in Chickens, $185,000, 3 Years, University of Delaware, R.D. Joerger.
The community of bacteria inhabiting the intestinal tract can prevent
or impede the establishment of undesirable bacteria such as Salmonella
enterica subspecies. The goal of the proposed research is to identify
and isolate bacteria from the intestinal tract of chickens and to
eventually test their effectiveness in reducing colonization of young
chicks with Salmonella.
Fluorescence-Based Chemical Sensor for Saxitoxin, $95,000, 2 Years,
University of Miami, R.W. Gawley (PI). Saxitoxin is the primary
constituent of the paralytic shellfish poisons. The investigators have
discovered a molecular receptor that ``signals'' the presence of
saxitoxin in solution by emitting light. The goal of this study is to
begin the development of a photochemical sensor for the presence of
saxitoxin which could be used to detect contamination of shellfish
beds.
Defining Genomic Sequences Specific to Virulent Vibrio vulnificus
Strains to Assess Risk, $90,000, 1 Year, University of Florida, P.A.
Gulig (PI). Currently, there is no practical test to determine if
seafood products contain hazardous strains of Vibrio vulnificus. The
goal of this study is to define DNA sequences specific to virulent
strains and to develop simple DNA probe test(s) that can be used by
industry and public health organizations to assess risk.
Regulation of Lipopolysaccharide Micro Heterogeneity, $125,000, 2
Years, USDA Agricultural Research Service, J. Guard-Petter (PI). This
study is directed towards understanding the genetic changes that result
in strain variation in the Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis--SE.
Strain variation will be measured by the ability of strains to generate
particular lipopolysaccharide structures while maintaining accelerated
growth. This work will lead to a better understanding of environmental
conditions that favor outgrowth of new strains of SE.
Mechanism for Inactivation of Microorganisms by High Oxidation
Potential Water, $120,000, 2 Years, University of Georgia, U.C. Hung
(PI). High oxidation potential--HOP--water has been reported to have
strong bactericidal effect on most pathogenic bacteria. The overall
objective of this project is to study the fundamental principles
involved in the inactivation of food microorganisms with HOP water. The
application of this technology will ensure food safety at reduced cost,
high food quality, and reduced danger from foodborne illness.
Screening Corn for Resistance to Aspergillus flavus and Aflatoxin
Accumulation, $100,000, 2 Years, Southern Illinois University, J.S.
Russin (PI). Two traits in corn genotypes will be used to identify
potential sources of resistance to Aspergillus flavus. Genotypes that
exhibit these traits will be evaluated for resistance in field trials.
Those that show resistance will be examined for the mechanism of
resistance.
Listeria monocytogenes: Ozone Inactivation, $95,000, 2 Years,
University of Illinois, S.E. Martin (PI). The objectives of this study
are to examine the effects of ozone on the pathogen Listeria
monocytogenes. Ozone has recently been recommended for approval as
Generally Recognized As Safe in food production. This study will
determine important parameters of ozone-induced injury and death of L.
monocytogenes in a food product--cabbage.
Persistence of Salmonella typhimurium in Swine, $240,000, 3 Years,
University of Illinois, R.E. Isaacson (PI). Salmonella typhimurium is
one of the major causes of salmonellosis in humans. Pigs persistently
infected with S. typhimurium are one of the major reservoirs of this
pathogen. One means to reduce the risk of foodborne infections caused
by S. typhimurium is to prevent pigs from becoming persistently
infected. This project is designed to understand the mechanisms
promoting persistent infections.
Analysis of the Osmotic Regulation of Thermotolerance in Salmonella
and E. coli O157:H7, $185,000, 3 Years, Purdue University, L. Csonka
(PI). The investigators have found that betaine, which is found at high
levels in edible plants such as spinach and cereal grains, blocks the
ability of salt additives to increase the heat tolerance of bacteria.
This project will carry out a comprehensive characterization of all
available structural relatives of betaine for their ability to
counteract the induction of increased thermotolerance by salt additives
in food pathogenic bacteria. This procedure may uncover new food
additives that might be used to increase the efficacy of thermal
inactivation in food contaminating bacteria.
Molecular Biology of Aflatoxin Biosynthesis in Aspergillus flavus,
$160,000, 2 Years, Purdue University, C.P. Woloshuk (PI). Aflatoxins,
produced by the fungus Aspergillus flavus, are toxic and carcinogenic
compounds contaminating a variety of food products. This research
project will investigate an unusual mutation in A. flavus to determine
the mechanism responsible for the suppression of aflatoxin
biosynthesis. This research will impact agriculture by furthering our
understanding about the regulation of aflatoxin biosynthesis and
contribute information leading to development of new strategies for
eliminating aflatoxin contamination.
Modeling Food Fluctuating Microbial Populations and Their Aperiodic
Outbursts, $90,000, 2 Years, University of Massachusetts, M. Peleg
(PI). This project will analyze the pattern of fluctuation of the
number of microorganisms in food products and will use mathematical
models and statistical methods to estimate the probability of
occurrence of an outburst of unusually high numbers which could be
considered a safety problem. These calculated probabilities can then be
used as an indication of an impending microbial outbreak, and a s a
tool to assess the efficacy of preventive methods in reducing the risk
of foodborne illness.
Genomic Analysis of Escherichia coli O157:H7 Populations from
Cattle and Humans, $150,000, 2 Years, University of Nebraska, A.K.
Benson (PI). The investigators have developed a powerful technique,
termed high-resolution genotyping, that permits identification of even
minor genetic differences between different E. coli O157:H7 strains. In
the study, they will develop a database for rigorous assessment of
isolates to identify genetic differences that may be related to
persistence--strains that can be repeatedly isolated from a given herd
of cattle over time. Ultimately, the results may provide a basis for
understanding the impact of herd management practices on the population
structure of E. coli O157:H7.
Antimicrobial Use and Emerging Resistence of Salmonella typhimurium
in Dairy Cattle, $120,000, 2 Years, Cornell University, L.D. Warnick
(PI). This project investigates the effect of antibiotic treatment of
clinical salmonellosis in dairy cattle on the occurrence of antibiotic-
resistant Salmonella typhimurium, a major animal and human pathogen.
This will be done by identifying dairy herds with S. typhimurium-
infected cattle based on diagnostic laboratory culture results,
obtaining antibiotic treatment information from farm records, and
collecting fecal samples from cattle on the farm for Salmonella
isolation and determination of resistance patterns. The study results
will provide valuable information on the emergence of antibiotic-
resistant Salmonella typhimurium and specific drug-use practices which
are associated with resistance.
Identification of Human Enteric Viruses in Foods and Foodborne
Disease Outbreaks, $140,000. 2 Years, North Carolina State University,
L. Jaykus (PI). The purpose of this research is to refine molecular
methods to detect human enteric viruses from foods and to further
develop approaches for the investigation of outbreaks of foodborne
viral disease. The successful completion of this project will provide
rapid and economical methods for the detection of viral contamination
of foods and the investigation of foodborne viral disease outbreaks.
These benefits will ultimately improve the safety of food products,
protect public health, and minimize financial losses due to viral
contamination of foods.
Stress-Induced Resistance to High Pressure in Listeria
monocytogenes and Escherichia coli O157:H7, $90,000, 2 Years, The Ohio
State University, A.E. Yousef (PI). High pressure processing is a
novel, non-thermal technique for inactivating pathogens in food by the
application of extremely high pressures. Since heat is not used in the
process, negligible flavor and nutrient changes occur as a result of
the high pressure treatment. Pathogenic bacteria are more likely to
survive during food processing if they were exposed to conditions that
make them resistant to preservation methods. This project will identify
the potential causes for increased resistance of pathogens to pressure.
The outcome of this project will help food manufacturers develop
strategies to overcome and eliminate stress-adaptation in foodborne
pathogens.
The Molecular Epidemiology of Clostridium perfringens Type A Food
Poisoning, $160,000, 2 Years, University of Pittsburgh, B.A. McClane
(PI). Clostridium perfringens type A food poisoning is a common
foodborne disease in the U.S. The diarrhetic and cramping symptoms of
this illness are caused by C. perfringens enterotoxin--CPE. This
project will evaluate four possible explanations for the strong
association between chromosomal CPE isolates and food poisoning. These
studies will improve the safety of the American food supply by
distinguishing whether only chromosomal CPE isolates are able to cause
food poisoning, or if isolates carrying an extrachromosomal CPE can be
converted, by food-related stress, into chromosomal CPE isolates.
Inactivation of Foodborne Pathogens Exposed to a Uniform Flow
Discharge Plasma, $71,442, 1 Year, University of Tennessee, D.A. Golden
(PI). The overall objective of this research is to evaluate the
efficacy of a One Atmosphere Uniform Glow Discharge Plasma--OAUGDP--for
its ability to destroy foodborne pathogens. The OAUGDP is a newly-
invented form of electron discharge which generates a uniform glow
discharge plasma in atmospheres of various gases such as helium, carbon
dioxide, and most importantly, air. The OAUGDP unit has the potential
to be adapted as an in-line process suitable for application as a
mechanism of pasteurizing foods and controlling foodborne pathogens.
Sporulation Control of Enterotoxin Synthesis in Clostridium
perfringens, $130,000, 2 Years, University of Tennessee. S.B. Melville
(PI). Clostridium perfringens is a common source of food poisoning in
humans. The ability of C. perfringens to produce a heat resistant spore
not only leads directly to the production of enterotoxin, but also
leads to increased outbreaks of the disease. Often, foods are prepared
at high enough temperatures to kill vegetative cells, but not spores.
The purpose of this study is to determine how the sporulation process
regulated enterotoxin protein gene expression. Information about how
heat-resistant spores and enterotoxin are produced by the cell can be
used to develop better food handling procedures to reduce the incidence
of this very common disease.
Novel Antimicrobial Systems for Control of Foodborne Pathogens,
$90,000, 2 Years. University of Wisconsin, E.A. Johnson (PI). In the
presence of low concentrations of the food-approved flavorants
nerolidol and farnesol, microorganisms are inhibited by markedly lower
doses of certain antimicrobial agents and antibiotics. These compounds
are derived from natural plant sources. In this study sensitization by
flavorants and inactivation of foodborne pathogens will be
investigated. The successful completion of this project will provide
novel elimination and sanitation technologies to reduce the risk of
foodborne disease from foods and food contact surfaces.
DNA-Binding Proteins CspE and Dps Protect DNA at Low pH in
Escherichia coli O157:H7, $115,000, 2 Years, University of Wisconsin,
C.W. Kaspar (PI). It is hypothesized that acid tolerance of Escherichia
coli O157:H7 is a contributing factor to the low-infectious dose noted
for this human pathogen. Because DNA is sensitive to acidic--low pH--
environments and survival is dependent upon its protection, the goal of
this project is to define the contributions of specific regulated
proteins, known as CspE and Dps, to DNA proection in low pH
environments such as foods and gastric fluid. Results from this study
will provide industry and public health agencies with the much needed
data to further refine strategies for control, identify areas of risk,
and add to the scientific knowledge on the survival of E. coli O157:H7.
1997 Awards, ensuring food safety:
The Role of Acid Resistance in Escherichia coli O157:H7
Colonization and Disease, $227,000, 3 Years, University of South
Alabama, J.W. Foster (PI). A crucial feature of Escherichia coli
O157:H7 pathogenesis is its ability to withstand stomach acidity. The
long term goal of this study is to develop new strategies that will
diminish the infectious character of this pathogen through an
understanding of the molecular basis of acid resistance in E. coli with
emphasis on the superior acid resistance of O157:H7.
Quantitative Viability Assays for Cryptosporidium parvum and
Giardia lamblia, $44,000, 1 Year, University of California, Davis D.O.
Cliver (PI). Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia lamblia are common
waterborne agents whose potential for transmission via foods is
increasingly being recognized. The objectives of this study are to
develop quantitative viability assays for C. parvum and G. lamblia and
to evaluate the methods in trials of killing the protozoan oocysts or
cysts by various means pertinent to food safety. The tests will be
applied in inactivation trials with viable oocysts or cysts in foods of
interest--e.g., apple juice, shellfish--or in water that might be used
in food processing.
Molecular Stress Physiology of Listeria monocytogenes, $113,000, 2
Years, Illinois State University, B.J. Wilkinson (PI). This study will
look at the underlying mechanisms involved that permit Listeria
monocytogenes to grow at low temperatures. The investigators will
attempt to identify novel genes and proteins involved in growth at low
temperatures. It is hoped that these studies will provide the
scientific basis that will lead to novel methods of control of Listeria
and improved methods of detection of the organism.
Detoxification of Fumonisin by a Simple Fructose Reaction in Corn
for Food, $110,000, 2 Years, Iowa State University, S. Hendrich (PI). A
suspected cancer-causing agent in humans, fumonisin B1--FB1--requires
its amine group, a simple nitrogen-containing portion of the molecule,
for its toxic action. Reacting this amine with simple sugars, such as
fructose, is likely to block fB1 toxicity. The objectives of this study
are to determine the toxicity of fructose-fB1 products in feeding
studies in pigs and rats and to determine the processing conditions for
the reactions of fructose and glucose with fumonisin to occur in corn-
based foods. These studies may provide a practical approach to the
problem of natural toxins, increasing the safety of the food supply by
detoxifying a natural toxin that occurs in corn everywhere.
Salmonella enteritidis Heterophil Resistance, $164,000. 3 Years,
Iowa State University, T.T. Kramer (PI). The investigators have
isolated two less virulent Salmonella enteritidis--SE--mutants which
are only briefly shed by infected chickens, are effective in protecting
birds against virulent challenge, and prevent egg transmission of
virulent SE. In this study, they will use these mutants to study the
molecular basis of SE virulence and to identify genes involved in
immune cell resistance so that safer vaccines can be developed.
Extracellular Sporulation Signals of Clostridium perfringens,
$148,000, 3 Years, University of Massachusetts, R. Labbe (PI).
Clostridium perfringens is a leading cause of human foodborne illness
in the U.S. This organism produces heat resistant spores. An
enterotoxin is produced by some strains during sporulation and
therefore the sequence of events leading to spore formation are
especially important. The investigators have identified a sporulation
factor produced by both enterotoxin-positive and negative strains which
stimulate the onset of sporulation and enterotoxin formation by this
organism. In this study they will develop conditions to optimize the
levels of this factor and then attempt to isolate and characterize it.
Enhanced Green Fluorescent Protein Expression in Escherichia coli
to Study Adherence to Meat, $92,000, 2 Years, University of
Massachusetts, L.S. McLandsborough (PI). This study will develop a
microscopic experimental system that will investigate bacterial
adhesion to meat surfaces at the cellular level. Knowledge of the
interaction between bacterial and meat surfaces will lead to improved
methods of detection and meat decontamination.
Detection and Analysis of Staphylococcus aureus Enterotoxin A in
Food, $133,000, 2 Years, Johns Hopkins University, L. Rasooly (PI). The
goal of this project is to increase food safety by developing the next
generation of detection and analysis methodology for bacterial toxins
in food, using Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxin A--SEA--as a model.
The project aims to develop two technologies: a cell culture based
assay of SEA activity and biosensor methodology for immediate automated
detection of SEA in food. Biosensor technology represents a new
approach to food safety analyis: real-time analysis.
Intimin: Candidate for an Escherichia coli O157:H7 Anti-
Transmission Vaccine, $232,456, 3 Years, Uniformed Services University
of the Health Sciences, A.D. O'Brien (PI). Most cases of
enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:H7--EHEC--disease have occurred
after ingestion of undercooked, contaminated ground beef. Cattle are
reported to be asymptomatically infected with the organims. EHEC have
been shown to adhere to the intestinal epithelium of neonatal calves
via a bacterial surface protein called intimin. The long-term goal of
this project is to develop an inexpensive vaccine to prevent cattle
from becoming infected with EHEC, and thus prevent transmission from
cattle to humans.
Survival and Virulence of Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli as
Affected by pH and Water Activity, $87,000, 2 Years, University of
Maryland, J. Meng (PI). A variety of foods have been implicated in
Escherichia coli O157:H7 outbreaks, particularly foods of bovine
origin. Certain foods such as apple cider and dry-cured salami that
were considered safe and are generally not heated before consumption
have been identified as transmitting vehicles in E. coli O157:H7
outbreaks. Unlike O157:H7, most of the non-O157 EHEC serotypes have
been isolated from sporadic cases, hence, the significance of food as a
vehicle for transmitting non-O157 EHEC is not clear. This project will
study survival of EHEC strains--mainly non-O157:H7--as affected by pH
and water activity and virulence of EHEC strains as affected by pH and
water activity.
Symposia on Microbial Foodborne Hazards--Basic Research/Industry/
Regulatory Concerns, $6,000, 1 Year, U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
V.K. Bunning (PI). The Food Microbiology Research Conference--FMRC--
focuses on the presentation of basic/applied research by scientists
within academia, government, and industry. The FMRC meets every two
years to advance knowledge and understanding in the area of food
microbiology.
Recombinant Antibodies to Natural Toxicants, $116,000, 2 Years,
Michigan State University, J.J. Pestka (PI). This project seeks to
genetically engineer novel antibodies to an important group of natural
toxins known as the Fusarium mycotoxins which commonly contaminate
wheat, corn, rice, and barley. From the perspective of food safety, the
general approaches developed in this research will be amenable to
improved detection of natural toxicants, chemical contaminants as well
as bacterial pathogens and their toxins.
Adhesins for Colonization of Chickens & Their Use in Preventive of
Salmonellosis, $156,000, 3 Years, Washington University, R. Curtiss III
(PI). The long-term objective of this study is to reduce or eliminate
Salmonella colonization of poultry, which would in turn result in a
reduction in the shedding of Salmonella in feces, its transmission to
eggs, and the cross-contamination which occurs during processing. An
understanding of the mechanism of Salmonella adherence to chicken cells
could be particularly valuable when developing strategies to eliminate
Salmonella contamination of poultry.
Incidence and Fate of Moniliformin in Corn and Heat Processed Corn
Products, $97,000, 2 Years, University of Nebraska, L.B. Bullerman
(PI). Moniliformin is a highly toxic substance produced by Fusarium
proliferatum and Fusarium sublutinans, molds commonly found on corn.
The overall objective of this study is to determine the incidence and
levels of moniliformin in U.S. corn and corn-based foods and the
effects of heat, as applied in basic thermal processing of corn, on the
stability of moniliformin.
Modeling the Interactions of Pathogenic and Biocontrol Bacteria for
Applications in Foods, $86,000, 2 Years, USDA-Agricultural Research
Service, F. Breidt (PI). The objective of this research is to develop a
safe method for preventing the growth of pathogenic bacteria in
minimally processed, refrigerated foods. A biocontrol strategy will be
sued which involves bacterial competition to accomplish this task.
Lactic acid bacteria which are commonly used in various food
fermentations--dairy, meat, vegetables--will be added as biocontrol
agents to prevent the growth of pathogenic bacteria in minimally
processed foods.
Salmonella in Modern Swine Production Systems. Risk Factors for
Fecal Shedding by Finished Pigs, $241,000, 3 Years, North Carolina
State University, P.R. Davies (PI). Specific objectives of this project
are to determine risk factors for Salmonella prevalence in finishing
pigs raised on slotted concrete floors in barns managed all-in/all-out,
withing multiple-site production systems and the relative importance of
Salmonella infection in nurseries or the finishing environment as
determinants of Salmonella infection in finishing hogs. The information
obtained will be relevant to a large and increasing segment of the
national swine industry and will aid in defining the most efficient
options for reducing Salmonella in the pork supply.
Experimental Campylobacter Vaccine, $138,000, 2 Years, University
of Pennsylvania, I. Nachamkin (PI). Campylobacter jejuni is a major
cause of gastrointestinal infection in humans. The goal of this study
is to assess the ability of previously developed Campylobacter vaccines
to confect cross protection with different flagella types of C. jejuni,
determine the minimal amount of time needed post-immunization to confer
protective immunity, determine the minimal C. jejuni challenge dose in
which complete protection occurs, determine whether the bivalent
vaccine confers protection against Salmonella infection, and determine
the smallest flagellin fragment that can elicit protective immunity.
Food Pathogen Biosensors for Rapid Safety Measurements of Meat,
$96,205, 2 Years, University of Rhode Island, A.G. Rand (PI). Classical
procedures for the detection of microbial pathogens in meats are slow
and labor intensive. Rapid methods currently available are either
complex, require potentially hazardous and expensive materials, or
utilize a pre-enrichment step of 18-24 hours to grow enough cells for
detection. This project will establish that biosensors employing
immobilized antibodies specific for meat pathogens can be successfully
utilized for biomonitoring of contamination in food products.
Salmonella typhimurium Genes Required for Systemic Infection of
Cattle, $90,000, 2 Years, Texas A & M University, R.M. Tsolis (PI).
Little is known about genes allowing Salmonella typhimurium to cause
systemic infection in cattle, an important meat source in the U.S.
Since systemic infection can lead to a chronic carrier state,
information about the mechanisms used by S. typhimurium to establish
systemic infection is relevant to development of strategies to
eliminate this pathogen from cattle. The goals of this project are the
identification and characterization of bacterial genes which enable S.
typhimurium to cause systemic infection in cattle.
Fumonisins: Immunology, Genetics and Enzymology, $129,897, 2 Years,
University of Wisconsin, F.S. Chu (PI). Using mutant cultures and a
combination of immunochemical and chemical methods, the investigators
will identify the major steps, intermediates, and enzymes involved in
the biosynthesis of fumonisins. The methodology developed in the
proposed work could be used for further studies of the conditions
conducive to the formation of fumonisins in the field and during
storage.
REGIONAL CROP INFORMATION AND POLICY CENTERS
Question. The President proposes first-time funding of $1,500,000
for Regional Crop Information and Policy Centers program. Please
explain why this new program is needed and why the goals of this
program can't be fulfilled by other existing programs, and identify
where each of the proposed Centers will be located.
Answer. USDA has placed a high priority on the establishment of
regionally-based Pest Management Center(s) as a means of strengthening
its connection with production agriculture, research and extension
programs, and agricultural stakeholders throughout the United States.
Since passage of the Food Quality Protection Act--FQPA--in 1996, USDA
and the Environmental Protection Agency--EPA--have recognized the need
for a pest management information network that can quickly respond to
information needs of the public and private sectors. When fully
functional, Pest Management Centers will help agricultural producers,
USDA, and its partner institutions identify, prioritize, and coordinate
a national pest management research, extension, and education program
implemented on a regional basis. The intent of the Center concept is to
bring to the region a new level of coordination and stakeholder input
to Federal and state pest management programs and activities. This
effort will be directed toward coordinating expertise and resources
located at colleges and universities throughout a multi-state region.
The exact location of each of the centers will be determined by a
competitive grants process. Criteria for selection includes: (1) the
expertise present at site; (2) documentation of the ability to
accomplish the Center objectives; (3) the ability to provide leadership
to form a broad-based regional information network; (4) the ability to
foster research, extension and education collaborations,
interdisciplinary teams, and inter-institutional partnerships; (5) the
adequacy, professional training and experience of Center staff; (6)
evidence that stakeholders were consulted during proposal preparation
and will participate in the operation of the Center; (7) the ability to
establish partnerships with stakeholders to accomplish Center
objectives; and (8) institutional support for the Center and a budget
reflective of the Center objectives.
1994 INSTITUTIONS
Question. Why does this budget propose to support infrastructure
enhancement at the 1994 Institutions through an increase in the annual
contribution into the endowment rather than through a separate line-
item in the budget?
Answer. The critical need for infrastructure support at the 1994
Institutions is well documented. While the purpose of the endowment
fund is to support educationally related activities, often the
classrooms and laboratories at the 1994 Institutions are in poor and
unsafe condition. By providing the 1994 Institutions with a stable
funding source for improving their educational facilities, college
administrators will be more effective in planning institutional needs.
This will create a better educational environment for both students and
faculty and allow the 1994 Institutions to be more effective partners
in the Land Grant community. Each 1994 Institution will be able to
determine if its priority needs are educational activities or in
infrastructure to support those educational activities, and be able to
plan accordingly.
NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE
Question. Is there a need in your view to establish better
accountability measures of agricultural research outcomes for the
National Research Initiative projects and other federally-funded
agricultural research? I understand that NRI, for example, has no
systematic documentation of accomplishments from past funded research.
It has been suggested that competitively awarded ``evaluation grants''
might be one way to address this. Do you agree?
Answer. While accountability for programs such as the National
Research Initiative--NRI always could be improved, the NRI does
systematically document accomplishments from funded research. Each
awardee is required to produce annual and final technical reports. In
addition, one of the most rigorous accountability measures for NRI
supported projects is the renewal of the project. For a project to
renew, it must go through a peer review and be analyzed by a panel of
experts as to its accomplishments, its progress towards meeting its
original stated goals, and its proposed work for the next funding
increment. To renew, the project must also compete against other
renewals and new projects. This systematic analysis of the supported
research provides one of the most rigorous accountability measures
possible.
The NRI could better its accountability, not on a project by
project basis, but on a program basis. This year as a pilot project,
the NRI is using experts to assess the value of previously supported
projects, what has resulted from these projects, and the state of the
science in the Markets and Trade program area. While this is a pilot
program, CSREES expects that valuable information will be produced and
such an analysis could serve as a foundation for further programmatic
evaluations. However, such an evaluation is costly and with the many
programs within the NRI and elsewhere, it would be cost-prohibited to
plan such an exercise for each and every program. Evaluation grants
might offer an opportunity for this, however, additional funds should
be provided for such purposes since the existing funding level for the
NRI only allows support of about 20 percent of all submitted projects.
SMITH-LEVER 3(D) FARM SAFETY AND AGRABILITY
Question. The Administration again proposes to eliminate Smith-
Lever 3(d) farm safety funds and funding for the AgrAbility program
after the Administration rescinded nearly $600,000 in fiscal year 2000
appropriations provided for these programs. Why does the Administration
propose to eliminate funding for these programs?
Answer. This action is consistent with the Administration's belief
that the most effective use of taxpayer dollars is through
competitively-awarded, peer reviewed grants. Alternate funding from
formula programs, State and local governments, and private sources
could be used to support aspects of this program deemed to be of high
priority at State and/or local levels. However, a new Youth Farm Safety
Education and Certification program is proposed for $5.0 million in
fiscal year 2001.
YOUTH FARM SAFETY EDUCATION AND CERTIFICATION
Question. A new program named Youth Farm Safety Education and
Certification is proposed to be established with a funding level of $5
million. Please describe this new program in detail (who would be
eligible for the program, how funds will be awarded, and what
activities will be funded, etc.). Also, how is this proposed new
program different from the Smith-Lever 3(d) farm safety and AgrAbility
programs the Administration proposes to eliminate?
Answer. The Fair Labor Standards Act and selected state laws allow
child agriculture workers to work at younger ages, for longer hours,
and in more hazardous occupations than in other industries. Minors 16
and 17 years of age are exempt from prohibitions on work in hazardous
occupations identified by the Secretary of Labor, and 14 and 15 year
old children are exempt from the hazardous occupation restriction if
they possess a valid certificate documenting completion of safety
training for tractor operation or other machine operation. This new
Youth Farm Safety Education and Certification Initiative would
establish a USDA-administered competitive grants program to states to
provide formal safety training and certification targeted to youth age
16-17 years. These grants would also be used for related purposes such
as curriculum improvement for current safety programs and development
of new safety education curricula for other agricultural occupations as
needed. The initiative would provide funds to land-grant institutions
in order to contract with qualified private businesses and community
and youth organizations to deliver education and training, such as 4-H,
Future Farmers of America, and other similar organizations that would
provide safety education that prepares youth for safety certification.
This initiative is intended to augment state and local vocational
agriculture school funds for safety training by agricultural employers
and other private businesses, and is intended to enhance the safety of
young farm workers, while maintaining their employability in
agriculture and minimizing disruptions to farm employers' access to
youth workers.
The Youth Farm Safety Education and Certification program supports
specific formal training that is required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act while the current Farm Safety program provides limited support for
an Extension program developed by State or Territory Extension
specialists that addresses a wide range of farm safety program needs
identified by these specialists. The AgrAbility program is designed to
assist farmers with disabilities to stay in farming.
No Federal funds have been appropriated to support the current
certification training required by the Fair Labor Standards Act for 14-
15 year olds. Thus, State Extension programs have struggled to find the
resources to provide the training, keep training materials current, and
conduct evaluations of the training.
1890 institutions
Question. Provide a list, by 1890 institution, of the renovation
and construction projects funded in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year
1999, the funds provided for each, and the amount required in future
years to complete the project.
Answer. Awards are made for the acquisition and improvement of
agricultural and food sciences facilities and equipment, including
libraries, so that the 1890 Land-Grant Insitutions and Tuskegee
University may participate fully in the production of human capital in
the food and agricultural sciences. These activities are ongoing and
are proposed in a five-year plan of work. The first table indicates the
past, current, and proposed appropriations to complete activities under
the current five-year plan of work starting in fiscal year 1998. The
second table is a chart which provides the progress to date on each of
these projects, as well as the plans for each facility in fiscal year
2000.
1890 FACILITIES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................................. $403,755 $449,013 $666,710 $666,710 $666,710 $2,852,898
Tuskegee................................................ 403,755 449,013 666,710 666,710 666,710 2,852,898
Arkansas................................................ 387,818 430,036 658,969 658,969 658,969 2,794,761
Delaware................................................ 310,482 337,479 621,209 621,209 621,209 2,511,588
Florida................................................. 408,640 454,830 669,083 669,083 669,083 2,870,719
Fort Valley............................................. 448,874 502,734 688,627 688,627 688,627 3,017,489
Kentucky................................................ 497,465 560,587 712,229 712,229 712,229 3,194,739
Southern................................................ 379,624 420,281 654,989 654,989 654,989 2,764,872
Maryland................................................ 356,775 393,076 643,890 643,890 643,890 2,681,521
Alcorn.................................................. 392,395 435,487 661,192 661,192 661,192 2,811,458
Lincoln................................................. 495,381 558,109 711,217 711,217 711,217 3,187,141
North Carolina.......................................... 511,065 576,736 718,817 718,817 718,817 3,244,252
Langston................................................ 399,604 444,071 664,694 664,694 664,694 2,837,757
South Carolina.......................................... 394,830 438,385 662,374 662,374 662,374 2,820,337
Tennessee State......................................... 455,003 510,031 691,604 691,604 691,604 3,039,846
Prairie View............................................ 570,689 647,775 747,798 747,798 747,798 3,461,858
Virginia State.......................................... 430,885 481,317 679,888 679,888 679,888 2,951,866
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.......................................... 7,247,040 8,088,960 11,520,000 11,520,000 11,520,000 49,896,000
===============================================================================================
Federal Admin........................................... 301,960 337,040 480,000 480,000 480,000 2,079,000
===============================================================================================
Total............................................. 7,549,000 8,426,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 51,975,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1890 FACILITIES PROGRAM SUMMARY OF PROGRESS
[Fiscal years 1999 and 2000]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institution 1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama A&M University Normal, Develop Enhance teaching
Alabama. specifications facilities for
and bid requests academic units in
for connectivity family, consumer
of Interactive and food
Video Center and sciences.
Mobile Video Establish a multi-
Conference media laboratory
Laboratory. to enhance
Select architect instruction and
for renovation of research lecture,
teaching and workshops and
research seminars.
laboratories. Initiate the bid
Select architect process to
for replacement replace the
of heating and laboratory and
cooling system field research
for Hobson Bonner equipment.
Halls. Convert extension
Purchase research laboratories in
equipment. accommodations
Enhance Extension for new program
facilities/ efforts.
equipment.
Tuskegee University Tuskegee, Renovate and
Alabama. upgrade Milbank
Hall.
Renovate and
upgrade the
Vocational
Building as an
Extension
Activity Center.
Upgrade gutters
and repair
Morrison-Mayberry
Hall.
Planning for
improving and
constructing
teaching
facilities.
Renovate the
Vocational
Education
Building.
Construct Safety
and Food
Processing Center.
Purchase equipment
for the Extension
Building.
Complete the
renovation of
Milbank Hall.
Renovate and
convert the
Vocation Building
as an Extension
Activity Center.
Plan for teaching
facilities.
Install and seal
flooring in
Milbank Hall.
Install draining
system in Milbank
Hall.
Replace roof of
the new wing of
the Carver
Research
Foundation
Laboratory.
Acquire land and
plan for rural
tourism and
business
development
laboratory.
Construct Safety
and Food
Processing Center.
University of Arkansas Pine Site improvements Design for
Bluff, Arkansas. at the University renovation of
of Arkansas at Woodard Hall.
Pine Bluff (UAPB) Upgrade playground
farm. at the Child
Support renovation Development
of Woodard Hall. Center.
Renovation of Design of the
Child Development Child Development
Laboratory. Center.
Renovate Agronomy Renovation of
storage building. Agronomy Storage
Acquire Building.
replacement farm Construct an
vehicles. outdoor pavilion
Purchase GIS at the Lonoke
survey system farm site.
equipment. Purchase
Purchase instructional,
instructional and farm and research
audio-visual equipment.
equipment.
Design of the
Sheep Facility.
Construction of
Fish Processing
and Marketing
Facility.
Delaware State University Dover, Plan and construct Construct an
Delaware. a facility for office,
office, laboratory and
laboratory and classroom
classroom space. building to
Construction of support the
the herbarium. research,
extension and
academic programs
and centralize
the location of
two academic
departments of
the School of
Agriculture,
Natural
Resources, Family
and Consumer
Sciences.
Complete
construction of
the herbarium.
Florida A&M University Acquire land to Determine
Tallahassee Florida. construct a equipment and
facility for supplies needed
research, for the
teaching and Aquaculture
extension facility and
aquaculture. laboratories.
Develop plans and Develop plans and
specifications specifications
for Aquaculture for multi-purpose
facility. research,
teaching and
extension
facility.
Purchase computer
and office
equipment for
extension
offices.
Acquire materials
and supplies to
develop outreach
Environment
Science programs.
Acquire equipment
and furniture for
distance learning
classrooms.
Develop plans and
specifications
for enclosure at
teleconference
center.
Fort Valley State University Plan for the Construction of
Fort Valley, Georgia. construction of the Family
the Family Development
Development Center.
Center. Acquisition and
Acquire and installation of
improve laboratory and
laboratory and demonstration
demonstration equipment.
equipment.
Kentucky State University Development of a Establishment of a
Frankfort, Kentucky. Research, Resource
Extension and Technology
Teaching Center.
Aquaculture Field
Station.
Establishment of
Resource
Technology Center.
Southern University and A&M Purchase and Renovate meat
College Baton Rouge, Louisiana. install equipment laboratory.
including animal Install video
pens, electronic equipment for
timers, portable conference
bleachers, center.
portable panels, Renovate the
poultry coops. facility (Pinkie
Purchase a small Thrift Hall) for
vehicle. the Division of
Purchase fire and Family and
sound evacuation, Consumer
security and Sciences.
monitoring Renovate the Meat
systems for the Processing
Multi-purpose Laboratory to
Livestock Show meet health
Arena. department
Renovate the standards.
facility (Pinkie Complete purchases
Thrift Hall) for and installation
the Division of of signage,
Family and equipment and
Consumer Sciences. furnishings for
Bring the Meat the Cooperative
Processing Extension
Laboratory to Administrative
meet health Complex and
department Center for Small
standards. Farms Research
Plan to construct and the Arena
a facility to Complex.
store Complete landscape
agricultural design, and
chemicals. design and
Construct the construction of
Cooperative parking lot for
Extension the Cooperative
Administrative Extension
Complex and Complex.
Center for Small
Farms Research
and the Arena
Complex.
University of Maryland Eastern Design of the Construction of
Shore Princess Anne, Maryland. Plant Science and the Plant Science
Teaching Research and Teaching
Facility. Research
Design of the Food Facility.
Science and Construction of
Technology Center. the Food Science
and Technology
Center.
Purchase equipment
for the
Cooperative
Extension
facility.
Alcorn State University Lorman, Planning of Center Construction of
MS. for Center for
Biotechnology. Biotechnology.
Planning of Center Planning of Center
for Environmental for Environmental
Ecology and Ecology and
Natural Resources. Natural
Resources.
Computer
Networking.
Lincoln University Jefferson Renovation of Continue
City, MO. Bennett Hall. renovation of
Bennett Hall.
North Carolina A&T State Wire and connect Construct new
University Greensboro, NC. offices and greenhouse and
classrooms in small horse barn/
Carver Hall to corral in support
University Fiber of teaching
Optic Network. programs in
Install new horticulture and
lighting, animal sciences.
ceiling, heating/ Enhance research
air conditioning capabilities of
and window Ward Hall in
treatments to support of multi-
offices, disciplinary
classrooms, and research and
auditorium in graduate
Carver Hall. education in food
Renovate labs safety, nutrition
offices, and and health.
lounge area in Enhance
Ward Hall and telecommunication
construct new s infrastructure
labs and research and capabilities
areas to support of research
program facilities; Ward
activities in Hall and C. H.
food safety, Moore Ag Research
nutrition and Facility and
health. School of Ag-TV
Purchase studio.
scientific Enhance
equipment. infrastructure of
Wire and connect research
offices and labs facilities, both
in Ward Hall. physical and
Establish equipment needs,
teleconferencing used in support
and distance of research and
education graduate
capabilities in education.
Coltrane Hall. Renovate and
expand extension
equipment/storage
building to
create bathrooms
and new offices,
conference room
and meeting
rooms.
Langston University Langston, OK Construct/renovate Construct/renovate
Extension/ Research/
Research Complex. Extension
Building.
Construct/renovate
greenhouse.
Construct new
facility to house
teaching,
research and
extension
programs.
South Carolina State University Construct/renovate Construct
Orangeburg, SC. Commercial commercial dining/
Foodservice hospitality
Management facility.
Laboratory. Continue
renovation at
Staley Hall
auditorium.
Continue
renovation at
R.L. Hurst
Building.
Tennessee State University Renovation and Continue
Nashville, TN. installation of development of
equipment for a demonstration
distance learning areas of distance
center. learning center.
Purchase Renovate and
equipment. upgrade the child
development
laboratory.
Prairie View A&M University Purchase office Continue to
Prairie View, TX. and audio-visual purchase office
equipment for the and audio-visual
Cooperative equipment for the
Agricultural CARC.
Research Center Purchase vehicles
(CARC). for the CARC.
Construct/renovate Continue to
H.S. Estelle 4-H construct H.S.
and Youth Camp. Estelle 4-H and
Renovate dairy Youth Camp.
goat center, Purchase equipment
creamery for
laboratory, meat communications
laboratory, network.
greenhouse, swine Upgrade
center, feed communications
mill, poultry network with new
center, and human equipment and
nutrition/food connectivity for
science satellite video
laboratories.. production.
Continue
renovation of
dairy goat
center, creamery
laboratory, meat
laboratory,
greenhouse, swine
center, feed
mill, poultry
center, and human
nutrition/food
science
laboratories.
Virginia State University Further develop Demolish current
Petersburg, VA. the greenhouse storage facility
facility. and construct a
Construct the new facility.
greenhouse. Construct a New
Purchase bus. Farm Service
Procure equipment Center.
for the Plant Develop an
Science and electronic
Animal Science Classroom.
Labs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXTENSION INDIAN RESERVATION PROGRAM
Question. The administration asks for an increase of over $3
million for Extension Indian Reservation Agents for fiscal year 2001.
Are all reservations eligible for this program? How many extension
agents are currently funded for fiscal year 2000 and at which
reservations are they located? How many requests for extension agents
are outstanding? How many agents can be added with this increase?
Answer. The Extension Indian Reservation Program--EIRP--provides
Extension agents and links the Land Grant University. The EIRP is
designed for large reservations--100,000 acres or larger--that preclude
adequate programming from existing county staffs. Reservations are
isolated, seldom have industrial development or job opportunities, and
often have high rates of unemployment, alcoholism, school-dropouts, and
nutrition-related health problems. Gainful employment opportunities are
tied to the limited natural resource base--mostly land and water.
Agriculture is often the only feasible route to gainful employment.
This program helps reservation residents to make the most of their
cultural and natural resources in the production of crops and
livestock; in the development of youth skills, self esteem, and
educational achievement; in the maintenance of family health and well-
being; and in the achievement of an improved quality of life.
The Reservation Extension agents help Native Americans to produce
and market crops, livestock, and timber; to develop quality products to
overcome isolated sales locations and quality or shipping discounts; to
develop and exploit niche markets; to develop healthier life styles; to
develop more nutritious diets; to forestall diabetes--a ubiquitous
malady in Indians; to develop marketable life-skills; to stay in school
until graduation; to pursue higher education; and to help themselves.
There is widespread need for more of these programs that assist new and
experienced farmers and ranchers; that provide linkages for ``Remote
Area''--veterinary--Medicine programs on the reservations; and that
encourage youth to achieve, develop leadership skills, stay in school,
develop healthy life styles, and to pursue college educations that will
be helpful to their families and others.
Developing these skills will enable reservation residents to make
direct use of their natural and cultural resources, rather than leasing
them to outsiders and depending upon the Bureau of India Affairs--BIA--
to collect, mishandle, and distribute the receipts; or to depend upon
welfare programs for sustenance.
There is a need for about 85 such projects, based on reservation
numbers and size. To date, only 25 are in operation because there has
been no funding increase for this program since 1990. There is a
backlog of 17 applications for this program. Other reservations have
expressed interest, but have been discouraged from submitting
applications until additional funding is available. The proposed
increase to $5 million would allow the program to increase the level of
support for many of the existing projects, and to add an additional 23
Reservation agents.
The present level of funding--$1.71 million, supports EIRP agents--
employees of the State Land-Grant University--on 25 reservations,
distributed as follows:
Alaska--1--(Tanana Chiefs Conf)
Arizona--4--(Navajo [Window Rock], Hopi, San Carlos Apache,
Colorado River Tribes.)
Florida--1--(Seminole)
Idaho--1--(Fort Hall)
Mississippi--1--(Choctaw)
Montana--4--(Flathead, Northern Cheyenne, Blackfeet, Ft. Belknap)
N. Carolina--1--(Cherokee)
N. Dakota--1--(Fort Berthold)
New Mexico--3--(Jicarilla Apache, Zuni, Navajo [Shiprock] \1\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Administered by the University of Arizona, in cooperation with
New Mexico State University and the Utah State University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada--1--(Nevada tribes)
Oklahoma--1--(Muscogee)
Oregon--1--(Warm Springs)
S. Dakota--2--(Pine Ridge, Rosebud)
Washington--2--(Chehalis, Colville)
Wyoming--1--(Wind River)
Under the fiscal year 2001 proposal, the program would actively
solicit applications for new projects from those reservations that have
previously applied, and from all other qualified reservations. The
Inter Tribal Agriculture Council estimates that a total of 86 agents
are needed to adequately serve such reservations. The proposed increase
would allow the EIRP to expand to a total of 48 reservation agents.
AGRICULTURE IN THE CLASSROOM
Question. There is an increase in the President's budget that would
double the funding for Ag in the Classroom. Please provide a brief
explanation of this program (who qualifies for the funds; what
activities are funded, etc.) How will the increased funding requested
for the program be utilized?
Answer. The Agriculture in the Classroom program is an effective
vehicle to provide students and educators with accurate information
about food and agriculture. The program integrates scientifically-valid
agricultural information into a variety of academic disciplines
including science, the social sciences, language arts, and mathematics.
The program reaches over 120,000 teachers annually, impacting over 5
million students.
We reach teachers through a variety of activities such as a
national web site linking State programs and other related agricultural
projects, national teacher awards honoring outstanding teachers
incorporating agricultural concepts into their curriculum, annual
conferences attended by over 300 teachers and educators, and a network
of State programs coordinated by the National Agriculture in the
Classroom Consortium. In addition, we seek to make agricultural
concepts a part of national initiatives such as the Millennium Green.
In 1999, eight graduate-credit courses were offered throughout
Missouri to better acquaint 200 teachers with agriculture and
demonstrate how to integrate some facet of agriculture into the regular
classroom curriculum. On average, each participating teacher will teach
10 years, reaching over 50,000 children. Efforts of this nature are
being replicated across the Nation. For the 1999-2000 school year, the
Missouri Farm Bureau Foundation for Agriculture is providing $7,500 in
mini-grants to K-12 teachers who demonstrate ability to enhance student
knowledge of agriculture. Thirty-nine classrooms will directly benefit
from this endeavor. Mini-grant programs in each State and territory are
supporting projects that promote agricultural literacy efforts.
Ohio's Agriculture in the Classroom program has been successful in
developing a comprehensive educational kit in conjunction with Ohio
State University. This kit meets the Ohio's Kindergarten through third
grade competencies and helps prepare students for their State
proficiency tests.
Maryland's Agriculture in the Classroom program has been successful
in educating teachers, students, and the public about agriculture with
three Mobile Agriculture in the Classroom Laboratories. The themes for
the mobile units are ``Aquatic Science,'' ``Agricultural Products,''
and the ``Biotechnology and Food Safety.''
Additional funding would allow the Department and the Agriculture
in the Classroom community to expand education outreach activities to
under-represented groups, support regional demonstration projects,
continue the integration of information technology to lower program
delivery costs, and increase outstanding teacher recognition
initiatives.
Other planned initiatives include the development of materials
which portray scientifically-accurate and technologically-advanced
agriculture, dissemination of materials about career opportunities in
the food and agriculture arena, research and evaluation of program
components, an expanded network of educators involved in promoting
agricultural literacy, and strengthened relationships between the
Agriculture in the Classroom community and our partnering college and
university systems.
louisiana and mississippi rural health projects
Question. Please give the Committee an update on the Louisiana and
Mississippi rural health projects funded for the last several years.
Answer. The Nurse Managed Family Health Care Center project
conducted by Southern University and A&M College is a health promotion
and disease prevention program for at-risk populations residing in
rural and inner city neighborhoods in south Louisiana. Quality, cost-
effective, community-based health care services are offered through a
collaborative practice model where graduate-prepared nurse faculty,
nursing students, and physicians located in the community health
outreach centers assist women, children and the elderly in promoting
self-care health behaviors.
Since the inception of the program in 1995, 400 nursing students
have participated in this program. During 1999, in a partnership with
Head Start, 500 children enrolled in Head Start were able to receive
all their health screenings through the mobile health unit made
available in this program. The mobile clinic also visited a rural
clinic and homeless shelters in inner-city neighborhoods.
This program continues to expand outreach to underserved
populations and has been recognized in a number of publications.
The Mississippi Rural Health Corps is a joint endeavor of the
state's 15 community and junior colleges and the Mississippi State
University Cooperative Extension Service. The purpose of the project is
to improve rural health through the education of Mississippi residents
and the training of health care professionals in rural practice. Loans
have been made to 608 students enrolled in nursing and allied health
professional courses. Of the 608 loans, 246 were awarded to students in
an associate degree nursing program, 140 went to those in licensed
practical nursing programs, with the remainder awarded to students in
allied health professional programs. Four loans assisted nursing
faculty to pursue advanced degrees.
During 1999, 362 Corps students graduated. Since the inception of
the program, 1,827 loan recipients have graduated. Each makes a
commitment to practice for up to a maximum of three years in a rural
setting.
Other examples of the breadth of the outreach include the
following: two nursing courses, one nutrition course, and three health
seminars which were delivered to 17 locations throughout the state in
1999. Extension agents reached over 60,000 clients with health related
training and events. Mississippi Extension staff trained 2,461 lay
health volunteers in early breast cancer detection who reached 16,400
women with prevention information. Self-care education reached 1,732
rural families with information on the safe use of medications.
This program continues to expand outreach and graduate new health
professionals.
INTEGRATED RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
Question. In the fiscal year 2000 budget the Administration
requested that Smith-Lever 3(d) programs Water Quality, Food Safety,
and Pesticide Impact Assessment be funded through the integrated
research, education, and extension competitive grants program. How do
you foresee the ability of the integrated authorities account to manage
these programs?
Answer. CSREES was created by merging the Cooperative State
Research Service and the Extension Service in 1995. Since that time,
CSREES has integrated the staff, functions, and goals of the two former
agencies into a new agency to serve the American public with the
highest quality agriculture and food system research, education, and
extension programs. However, this integration could never be complete
while no funding mechanism existed to link the functions of research,
education, and extension together under a single program. The
Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension Reform Act of 1998
includes Section 406, Integrated Activities, giving CSREES the
authority to develop programs which integrate these three functional
areas. In fiscal year 2000, Congress appropriated $39.541 million under
this funding authority.
Funding research, education, and extension under the Integrated
Activities authority holds several advantages. The integrated program
is open to a broader array of colleges and universities. All colleges
and universities, including the 1890 Institutions, Hispanic Serving
Institutions, and non-land grant colleges of agriculture are eligible
to compete for funds under these programs, thereby broadening the range
of topics proposed and building research, extension, and education
capacity of the non-1862 Land Grant community. Grants from the
integrated authority programs are competitively awarded, as required by
law; therefore, all proposals will be judged on technical merit, with
only the best programs funded. Most importantly, the integrated program
more closely links research programs with extension and education
activities and transfers the results of the research to producers more
quickly. For instance, in the pest management area, several programs
are funded under integrated authorities: Pesticide Impact Assessment,
Crops at Risk from FQPA Implementation, FQPA Risk Mitigation and Methyl
Bromide Transitions. These programs address critical issues faced by
producers who stand to lose important pest control tools to the
implementation of FQPA. The research to develop new pest management
systems must be immediately transferred to producers. The most
effective way to promote this linkage is through a single integrated
competitive program which evaluates each project on the basis of
scientific merit and the linkage of research, extension, and education
components.
INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
Question. There is a concern that there will be a funding gap when
the funding runs out for water quality programs in June 2000 and when
the funds will be awarded through the competitive basis that will
result in the termination of staff members and a disruption of
coordination activities between federal agencies and private sector
groups. What is the Administration doing to avoid this situation?
Answer. The integrated research, education, and extension Water
Quality Program is designed to protect water from contamination by
agricultural chemicals--including agricultural plant nutrients and
pesticides--and has also included efforts to reduce the overall impact
of agricultural practices in degrading the physical structure and
biological support capacities of water bodies. The program is
structured to allow the stakeholder community to be the group
responsible for the identification of most critical problems, and for
the development of approaches to resolve those problems. This approach
has historically resulted in the CSREES' support of a broad array of
projects and state programs designed to reduce nutrient loading to
targeted water bodies.
In fiscal year 2000, CSREES restructured its Water Quality Program,
placing all of the available funding under the Integrated Authority
outlined in Sec. 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998. This authority will be used to further
integrate the activities of research, education, and extension on a
common basis. Grants will be awarded on a competitive basis. Recipients
who have received grants in previous years have the ability to request
no cost extensions without additional funds, if appropriate, to
existing grants which may ease the funding gap. Watersheds will serve
as the common activity and reporting unit to be used within a regional
coordination structure that will facilitate inter-state collaboration
as well as collaboration with other Federal water quality programs. The
objectives of these watershed-based activities would be to identify the
causes of water quality degradation; conduct research filling the gaps
that are critical to the development of water improvement practices and
programs; implement watershed-scale improvement programs; monitor the
efficacy of the improvement programs implemented; assess the costs and
benefits of water quality management; and conduct evaluations closing
the loop and improving our understanding of the drivers of water
quality degradation.
For fiscal year 2001, CSREES has requested an additional $3.204
million to enhance current efforts by conducting integrated farm- and
watershed-scale research, education, and extension on ways to reduce
nutrient and pesticide delivery to streams and rivers draining into
coastal ecosystems--including the Great Lakes. If funded, the CSREES
Integrated Water Quality Program will promote a stronger linkage
between research, education, and extension to ensure that education and
outreach programs reflect the most current scientific knowledge
resulting from the Research, Education, and Economics water quality
research and development efforts.
These additional funds will also be used to support interagency
programs designed to assess and reduce nutrient delivery to impacted
coastal areas.
SMALL FARMS INITIATIVE
Question. The Administration proposes again the Small Farms
Initiative in the fiscal year 2001 budget at a funding level of $4
million. In what ways does this program propose to stop the decrease of
the small farm? Can this program be carried out in conjunction with
other programs that already exist?
Answer. CSREES' Small Farms Program proposes to address the
economic, social, and environmental problems that contribute to the
decrease in small farms nationally. The Initiative will support Land
Grant institutions and other partners who work with small farmers to
develop effective research, education, and extension programs on:
--Small farm specific research, rather than size neutral research;
--Marketing strategies such as direct marketing, cooperative
marketing, and community-supported agriculture;
--Helping beginning farmers establish viable farm operations;
--Entrepreneurial and business skills that will help small farms deal
with their social and environmental issues; and
--Facilitating the development of networks between farmers and
experts, in both the public and private sectors, that can help
SMALL FARMERS GAIN BETTER ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY.
The Small Farm Program will collaborate with other research,
education, and extension programs. In fiscal year 1999, CSREES' Small
Farm Program awarded four small grants to land-grant universities in
four regions to conduct feasibility studies assessing the resources
available for research and extension activities favoring small farmers
and ranchers. The information in the reports from the land-grant
universities will be useful to managers of the Small Farm Initiative
because the report will identify integral institutions such as
community-based organizations, non-profits, other government programs,
and individuals that have interest in the small farm effort and will
complement the work for effective research and extension to stop the
decrease of small farms and ranches.
BIOBASED PRODUCTS
Question. A new program named the Biobased Products Program has
been proposed in the President's budget that proposes to increase
economic opportunities for farmers by developing and expanding markets
through research, development, and commercialization of products from
bio-based resources. Does this program need to be authorized? Can you
explain in detail the effort in this program to promote
commercialization for ongoing projects within CSREES?
Answer. Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Education, and
Extension Reform Act enables an integrated approach to research,
education, and extension activities. The Biobased Products Program has
been proposed under this authority.
This proposed program targets the expansion of the domestic
industrial base through research and development of agricultural raw
materials as feedstocks for industrial products. Thus far, advances in
agriculture have stressed crop production technologies without a
comparable interest in new crops or conversion technologies to produce
industrial products. Currently, projects within CSREES that address
biobased product research and development are, for the most part,
single issue projects and do not take into account barriers to
commercialization that can occur at various points along the research
and development continuum. The proposed program is based on a systems
approach that will build upon currently funded projects and will
encompass all phases of product development, from growing industrial
crops, adding value to conventional crops, to demonstration of the end-
items. Integration of research, education, and extension activities is
considered an efficient mechanism to accomplish the goals of this
program.
METHYL BROMIDE TRANSITION PROGRAM
Question. Can you give an initial status report on the Methyl
Bromide Transition Program that has recently been funded? Do you feel
that the program thus far has been successful enough in its initial
stages to warrant such a large increase in funds? How many more
competitive grants can you award with this increase?
Answer. The Methyl Bromide Transition Program is being administered
in fiscal year 2000 as a competitive grants program, and it is expected
that 10 to 12 projects will be funded during the review process to be
conducted in early July with the awards announced at that time. The
proposed increase in funding for fiscal year 2001 would allow for about
20 more grants to be funded during the next year. The use of methyl
bromide is scheduled to be reduced from a 1991 baseline by 50 percent
in 2001, by 70 percent in 2003, and by 100 percent in 2005. This will
impact the U.S. tomato and strawberry industry, fruit and nut tree
production, nursery stock production, the cut-flower industry, forest
nursery production, ornamental crops, post-harvest treatments, and
other uses. Due to the large number of U.S. production systems that use
methyl bromide, the increase in funding is necessary to assure that
alternatives can be developed rapidly for all needs.
METHYL BROMIDE TRANSITION PROGRAM
Question. The Department stated that research, education, and
extension would proportionately receive the funds for the Methyl
Bromide Transition Program. Have you seen a need for one category to
receive more of the funds than another category?
Answer. The Methyl Bromide Transition Program was funded under
Section 406, Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive
Grants Program--Pest Management. These funds support integrated, multi-
functional agricultural research, extension, and education activities.
Depending upon the commodity, the degree to which an alternative to
methyl bromide use on that commodity has been developed varies greatly,
with some commodities having no proposed alternatives at this time.
Therefore, it is expected that proposals will equally consider the
research approach and the delivery of that research to the grower
through extension and education programs. Due to the competitive nature
of the program, we are not able to predetermine the ultimate
combination of research, education, or extension that will be supported
by these projects.
anti-hunger and food security grants program
Question. How does the proposed Anti-Hunger and Food Security
Grants Program in the fiscal year 2001 budget differ from the program
that the Administration proposed in last year's fiscal year 2000 budget
and why is there a significant decrease in funds from last years
proposal? Does this program need to be authorized?
Answer. The Food Recovery and Gleaning grants proposed in fiscal
year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 would have funded only food recovery,
gleaning, rescue, and donation programs, but the Anti-Hunger and Food
Security Grants proposed for fiscal year 2001 would fund, in addition
to food recovery and gleaning projects, a far broader array of projects
to reduce hunger, improve nutrition, strengthen local food systems, and
help low-income families move towards self-sufficiency. USDA broadened
the proposal in direct response to input from community-based groups
throughout the country who communicated their belief that food
recovery, gleaning, and donations programs would be most effective as
part of more comprehensive efforts to deal with local food insecurity.
The grants would be made available to any nonprofit group in the
United States, including faith-based organizations. Such groups could
include:
--food banks;
--church, synagogue, mosque, or temple-based soup kitchens or food
pantries;
--community food security groups;
--nonprofit small farmer or sustainable agriculture groups;
--food recovery, food rescue, or gleaning organizations;
--community gardening groups;
--job training, assets development, and micro enterprise
organizations;
--community action agencies;
--youth service organizations;
--nutrition education groups;
--nonprofit farmers' markets and direct marketing organizations.
The intent of the program will be to give out as many small and
medium-sized grants as possible to provide seed money so that the grant
recipients will be able to leverage other resources. Priority would be
given to innovative public/private partnerships that comprehensively
tackle local problems, as well as for the replication of successful
model programs. Nonprofit groups have consistently commented that
government and foundation funding that often focuses only on new--and
unproven projects--is not always wise public policy, particularly when
the funding streams will not fund the replication of programs that have
proven their effectiveness. Thus, these grants will place a significant
focus on helping nonprofit groups replicate projects that have already
proven their effectiveness.
The following are some examples of the types of projects that could
be funded by the grants:
--Enabling local emergency feeding organizations, which currently
focuses on the short-term goal of providing food to clients, to
increase their focus on longer-term and broader community food
security activities that both help their client move to self-
sufficiency and strengthen local food systems.
--Assisting small- and medium-sized farmers to sell their
agricultural products directly to school districts, government
hospitals, public universities, and other public institutions.
These projects have the potential to boost the income of
struggling family farmers and at the same time provide students
and others with improved nutrition by being able to eat fresher
products.
--Starting or expanding community or school gardens that enable low-
income residents to produce their own food; such projects can
help increase community self-reliance, increase the
availability of fresh produce in low-income areas, preserve
open space, teach young people about science, and even create
``safe spaces'' that reduce crime.
--Strengthening the infrastructure of food banks, food recovery
organizations, food rescue groups, and field gleaning
organizations necessary to increase the quantity and/or quality
of the excess food that is recovered and gleaned; funds could
be used for: (1) vehicles and fuel for transportation of
recovered food; (2) Volunteer coordinators as well as training
programs for volunteers; (3) preparing, printing, and
distributing handbooks, and instructional materials; (4)
heating and refrigeration equipment to ensure the safety of the
recovered food; (5) equipment to collect, sort, process,
dehydrate, transport, and distribute food.
--Supporting peer-to-peer efforts in which senior citizens provide
nutrition, food, and other assistance to fellow senior
citizens.
--Helping youth service or other community organizations increase the
involvement of community volunteers in anti-hunger and
community food security activities. This would advance the
volunteerism goals set jointly by President Clinton, former
President Bush, and former General Colin Powell. Funds could be
used for hiring staff to recruit and supervise volunteers, as
well as for training programs for volunteers.
--Increasing connections between farmers' markets and other local
food security and anti-hunger activities.
--Supporting the creation of new or expansion of existing community
kitchens, such as DC Central Kitchen, that combine rescuing
excess food with training low-income individuals for jobs in
the food service industry. Such programs have been extremely
successful in helping individuals move from poverty and
homelessness to self-sufficiency and independent living.
--Enabling community groups to team up with local universities to
comprehensively map all food security-resources in their
community and then conduct outreach to ensure that more
community residents utilize those resources.
--Expanding programs that engage chefs as volunteer nutrition
education instructors and tying nutrition education and
financial management training classes into broader community
food security efforts that comprehensively help low-income
families.
--Supporting the development of small, food-related businesses and
micro enterprises in low-income communities, such as youth
farm-stand programs or efforts in which products grown in local
gardens are turned into salad dressing or baked goods.
--Providing increased food and assets development assistance to help
working poor families to stay off welfare, increase their
ability to feed and support their families, and eventually move
into the middle class.
In fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, USDA proposed in the Food
and Nutrition Service's budget $20 million and $15 million in CSREES'
budget for grants for food recovery and gleaning. The need for food
banks, food pantries, soup kitchens, religious-based anti-hunger
groups, community food security organizations, etc. to receive Federal
assistance has increased in the past years with many organizations
reporting a rise in the number of families needing assistance,
particularly working families.
The proposed grants do not require separate authorization.
______
DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND
CONTRACTS TO PRIVATE SOURCES FOR SERVICES
Question. Please provide a description of estimates on the degree
to which the Department contracts to private sources outside USDA for
various services. Include in this description, estimated expenditures,
mission areas, and FTE equivalents for the current fiscal year.
Additionally, for the purposes of comparison, please include the same
estimates for fiscal year 1995. Finally, please describe what process
whereby decisions to contract out are analyzed and evaluated to insure
that the service level is not compromised and cost-savings are accrued.
Answer. USDA contracts out with private sources for a wide array of
services. The information provided below generally represents contracts
awarded for such services, with the exception of construction services.
We do not collect data on FTE equivalents of contracting activity.
Decisions to contract for services are made on a case-by-case basis by
the requiring office. The decision process is governed by the
instructions of the Office of Management and Budget in Circular A-76 in
those situations where it applies. The procurement process is governed
by A-76 and the instructions applicable in the Federal Acquisition
Regulation. USDA has installed an internal oversight process for
approval of advisory and assistance services in excess of $25,000.
Services in this category are elevated to the Under and Assistant
Secretaries for approval prior to contract award.
[The information follows:]
CONTRACTS TO PRIVATE SOURCE FOR SERVICES
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Mission Area and Agency -----------------------
1995 1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services:
Farm Service Agency......................... 44.1 70.9 16.9
Foreign Agricultural Service................ 0.3 ...... ......
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services: Food and 24.2 23.8 0.4
Nutrition Service..............................
Food Safety: Food Safety and Inspection Service. 3.4 15.6 10.6
Marketing and Regulatory Programs:
Agricultural Marketing Service.............. ...... 0.7 ......
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.. 17.1 11.6 1.5
Natural Resources and Environment:
Forest Service.............................. 254.5 361.7 77.5
Natural Resources Conservation Service...... 48.9 33.7 8.0
Rural Development Mission Area.................. 55.3 34.7 15.9
Research, Education, and Economics: Agricultural 85.7 93.0 32.4
Research Service...............................
Departmental Administration..................... 35.2 50.5 24.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
STRUCTURAL CHANGES AND CONCENTRATION
Question. Can you give more information on an increase of over $1
million dollars in the President's budget for an initiative on
Structural Changes and Concentration in Food and Agriculture to improve
the efficiency of the Agricultural Sector?
Answer. ERS aims to significantly enhance its ability to address
the growing issues of concentration and structural change in the food
system. Broad areas of interest include: structural change in food and
agricultural industries; expanded reliance on formal contracting as a
means of organizing the production and exchange of agricultural
commodities; and the role of new developments in biotechnology as they
affect structural change and agricultural markets. The increased budget
resources would be used to improve the agency's stock of relevant data;
to perform policy relevant economic research on structure and
concentration issues through internal agency research and through
cooperative research projects with universities and other agencies; and
to encourage interaction among researchers and dissemination of new
knowledge through a series of conferences and workshops on specific
topics. Actions would emphasize: (1) determining where and why
concentration is occurring in the agricultural marketing chain; (2)
examining opportunities and risks for farmers within this kind of
market environment; and (3) providing analysis for the USDA and other
parts of government regarding structural changes in agriculture.
ERS efforts regarding market concentration are distinct from those
of other USDA agencies because the focus of research and analysis is
addressed broadly to all agricultural markets from producers to
consumers. Concentration is occurring throughout the marketing chain,
among input suppliers, production agriculture, commodity marketing,
food processing, and wholesale and retail markets. At the same time,
marketing arrangements like contracting, vertical integration, and
various types of strategic alliances have emerged throughout the supply
chain from producers to processors to retailers. In some instances,
developments in biotechnology and intellectual property rights
influence trends in industry concentration and the choice of marketing
arrangements. Because concentration and changing marketing arrangements
and scientific developments are interrelated, analyses of concentration
and marketing arrangements must be largely integrated.
This initiative will aid expansion and targeting of data collection
related to changes in market structure and the identification of small
and mid-size farms that are affected by these developments. Current
data collection and research will indicate what portion of total
agricultural production is grown under contract, the distribution of
the mix of business strategies used by farmers, and will begin to
determine the extent to which economic returns from contract growers
differs from participants in cash market. This research will enhance
ERS's ability to measure and analyze changes in concentration and
provide assistance to USDA and the Department of Justice regarding
potential impacts of concentration and merger activity. Finally, ERS
will develop a forward-looking capacity to anticipate significant
changes in markets and their potential economic impacts on farmers and
consumers.
CARBON SEQUESTRATION
Question. What are the details on the initiative on the Economic
Incentives for Carbon Sequestration and Trace Gas Emissions Control in
Agriculture to mitigate the dangerous effects of greenhouse gases that
is proposed in the President's budget?
Answer. This initiative will focus on the economic potential for
domestic carbon sequestration and control of greenhouse gases (GHG) in
agriculture, the use of economic incentives to encourage carbon
sequestration on agricultural lands, and the potential to target USDA
conservation programs to promote GHG mitigation activities in the farm
sector.
ERS would initiate three kinds of activities:
Economic potential for domestic carbon sequestration and trace gas
control in agriculture.--This component of the work would seek to
establish the ``supply curve'' of trace gas control in agriculture. ERS
has begun a three-year cooperative research agreement with the Natural
Resource Ecology Laboratory in Colorado to investigate this topic.
Funding for the first two years has been provided by the Fund for Rural
America. Funding under this initiative would allow completion of the
third year.
Economic Incentives for Carbon Sequestration.--There are many ways
to create economic incentives for sequestering carbon in agriculture.
For farmers, however, the economic implications of even relatively
specific proposals, such as a system of tradable carbon permits, can be
very different depending on how such a program is implemented.
Additionally, the nonpoint nature of soil carbon sequestration means
that monitoring and enforcement could be a costly component of a
tradable permit system. For this reason, other policy mechanisms that
have been successfully used in agricultural conservation programs may
have merit or there may be ways to target programs such as Conservation
Reserve Program or Environmental Quality Improvement Program to meet
trace gas control goals. Research to use economic valuation techniques
to weight multiple objectives to better target these programs is
underway at ERS. Initiative funds would allow this work to incorporate
carbon sequestration and other trace gas control programs in such
targeting schemes.
The Global Potential for Agricultural Trace Gas Mitigation and
Sequestration.--This component of the initiative would allow ERS to
collaborate with researchers around the world to incorporate estimates
of carbon sequestration in agricultural soils into global economic
models such as ERS's FARM model as well as to consider the potential
for other GHG mitigation efforts on agriculture. This would build on
modeling work to estimate the impacts of climate change on agriculture
and link this to the broader issue of threats to global agricultural
sustainability such as water quantity and quality and land constraints
and soil degradation.
RESEARCH PRIORITIES
Question. What are the research priorities for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. ERS research priorities for 2000 are as follows for each of
the three program divisions:
Priorities for the food and rural economics division
Restructuring of the Food System.--Processing, wholesaling, and
retailing industries have been consolidating rapidly, following many
mergers, acquisitions, and plant closures. These transformations are
leading to larger and more specialized firms and plants with fewer
buyers and sellers. A series of ERS studies is designed to examine the
impact of these changes on businesses and consumers.
Food Stamp Caseloads.--ERS research will identify the forces that
explain the declining Food Stamp Caseloads including the impacts of the
economy, welfare reform, and State administrative practices. The study
will address the economic status of households and individuals leaving
the program.
Benefits of Safer Food.--In collaboration with the Centers for
Disease Control and the Food Safety and Inspection Service, ERS will
use data from the FoodNet active surveillance system to develop new
estimates of the costs associated with foodborne pathogens. These
finding will be used to rank pathogen-related diseases on the basis of
their economic impact. This will help establish priorities for
investments in food safety improvements, and to evaluate efforts to
strengthen the food regulatory system.
Low-Wage Low-Skill Workers in Rural Labor Markets.--ERS will study
the characteristics of low-skill, low-wage workers in rural America.
Focus will also be given to the availability of jobs, the geographic
distribution of rural workers, and the long-run market prospects for
low-income, low-skill workers.
Economic Change in Rural Areas.--ERS will study the determinants
and consequences of rural economic change in the 21st century. Analyses
will focus on demographic diversity and the changing face of rural
America; the socioeconomic well-being of rural residents; growth,
decline and stability of the rural economy; implications of industrial
restructuring on rural areas and challenges and policy implications for
the future.
Behavioral Nutrition.--ERS research will study children's food
consumption and compare it to the Food Guide Pyramid. Food intakes will
also be studied by source, at home and away, and eating occasion. The
factors causing the displacement of milk by soft drinks will be
addressed.
Priorities for the market and trade economics division
Risk and Uncertainty in U.S. Agriculture.--ERS research is focused
on factors influencing the degree of price and market risk, and
economic implications of various risk management strategies. In early
2001, a synthesis report will assess the current state of knowledge
regarding price variability in U.S. and global markets.
Unfinished Business and New Issues for Agriculture in the WTO.--ERS
research is now focused on finalizing conceptual and empirical economic
frameworks to analyze the unfinished business and new issues arising
out of implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture.
Planned for early 2001, Options for Agricultural Trade Liberalization
will provide a synthesis of quantitative analyses of the costs to the
global and U.S. economies stemming from protectionist agricultural
policies.
Biotechnology and Agricultural Markets.--In 2000, ERS studies will
examine the adjustment of marketing systems to the introduction of
biotech crops, the pricing of biotech crops, and the implications of
new genetically enhanced seeds on comparative advantage both in the
U.S. and globally.
Improved Capacity for Analysis and Forecasts of Demand and Supply
Conditions in Commodity Markets and Major Regions.--ERS'commodity and
regional market analyses provide timely economic outlook information on
U.S. and global agricultural markets. In 2000, ERS will study the
dynamics and changing structure of global food demand and its
implications for U.S. agricultural producers and exporters. ERS will
continue to develop new and innovative ways for users to access
commodity market information.
Structural Change in U.S. and Global Agriculture.--ERS will
undertake a series of studies on how structural changes in U.S. and
global commodity markets, such as the use of contracting, will affect
U.S. producers and consumers. A forthcoming report, Understanding the
U.S. Wheat Industry's Transition into the 21st Century, looks at
challenges and opportunities confronting wheat producers due to U.S.
farm policy changes, the pace of yield-enhancing research and new
product development, and a more liberalized and competitive global
marketplace.
Priorities for the resource economics division
Analysis of Farm Sector Performance.--As part of USDA's
interdepartmental responsibility to support estimation of the National
Income and Product Accounts, ERS will measure, forecast, and explain
indicators of economic performance for the U.S. farm sector and major
crop and livestock groups. Particular attention is directed to the
impact on farm income of adoption and use of technology, managerial
decisions and practices, and government programs.
Domestic Conservation Policy.--ERS will review the accomplishments
under the conservation titles of the past 3 Farm Bills and evaluate
options for a new generation of agri-environmental policies, to provide
insights regarding program size, design, and implementation.
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction, Carbon Sinks, and U.S.
Agriculture.--ERS will examine the economic potential for domestic
carbon sequestration and control of greenhouse gases (GHG) in
agriculture, the use of economic incentives to encourage carbon
sequestration on agricultural lands, and the potential to target USDA
conservation programs to promote GHG mitigation activities in the farm
sector.
Adoption of Bio-engineered Crops.--ERS will assess the farm-level
effects of the adoption of bio-engineered crops and identify the
factors that have affected adoption. Manure Management for Water
Quality Improvement. ERS will assess some of the issues in designing
nutrient-based nonpoint source pollution control policies and to
evaluate the economic and environmental characteristics of animal waste
regulations on confined livestock and poultry farms.
Small Farm Success.--ERS will examine the determinants of small
farm success, with particular attention to farm type (stated occupation
of the operator, financial resources, sales level), resource endowment,
and choice of integrated management systems. Agricultural Trade and the
Environment. ERS will analyze how trade liberalization agreements
affect the environment, how domestic environmental policies affect
trade flows, and how international environmental agreements can improve
global environmental quality.
GEOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF OBLIGATIONS
Question. What is the geographic breakdown of obligations for
fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Below is a table that shows the geographic breakdown of
obligations for fiscal year 1999.
Alabama....................................................... $27,000
Arizona....................................................... 176,800
Arkansas...................................................... 26,000
California.................................................... 764,428
District of Columbia..........................................53,077,897
Florida....................................................... 90,000
Georgia....................................................... 99,828
Illinois...................................................... 309,090
Indiana....................................................... 169,500
Iowa.......................................................... 180,000
Kentucky...................................................... 44,500
Louisiana..................................................... 7,100
Maryland...................................................... 406,429
Massachusetts................................................. 3,601,543
Michigan...................................................... 220,354
Minnesota..................................................... 197,500
Mississippi................................................... 182,900
Nebraska...................................................... 755,556
New Jersey.................................................... 18,500
New York...................................................... 813,212
North Carolina................................................ 212,812
Ohio.......................................................... 360,000
Oklahoma...................................................... 20,000
Oregon........................................................ 59,100
Pennsylvania.................................................. 15,000
Tennessee..................................................... 15,000
Texas......................................................... 38,700
Virginia...................................................... 271,550
Washington.................................................... 155,000
Wisconsin..................................................... 173,150
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total...................................................62,488,449
______
FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE
INCENTIVE PAYMENTS
Question. How much in incentive payments will be made to States
lowering their error rates in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. It is estimated that in fiscal year 2000 States will earn
$39 million for incentive payments by lowering their food stamp
issuance error rates in fiscal year 1999.
CHILD NUTRITION STATE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Question. What is the breakdown in increases requested by the
fiscal year 2001 budget proposal for State Administrative Expenses for
the Child Nutrition Programs? Why is an increase of $9,482,000 needed
for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The level of funding required for Child Nutrition, State
Administrative Expenses is dictated by section 7 of The Child Nutrition
Act, as amended. This law requires that 1.5 percent of the amount of
funds a State used in the second prior year for School Lunch and
Breakfast, Special Milk and the Child and Adult Food Care Programs be
made available to States for their administrative expenses for those
same programs. Thus, the funding requested for fiscal year 2001 is
determined by the actual expenditures in fiscal year 1999. All of the
funds requested would be granted to States, usually the State education
agency for school programs with some funding going to the State
Agriculture agency to pay for their expenses incurred in handling
commodities for schools and some to the State welfare agency if they
administer the Child and Adult Care Food Program. I will provide
additional data on how much funding is generated from each of the
programs listed above.
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES--EARNINGS: FISCAL YEAR 2001
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
1999 cash 2001 State
payments to Percentage Administrative
States expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Lunch Program........ $5,516,552 1.5 $82,748
School Breakfast Program.... 1,354,843 1.5 20,323
Child and Adult Care Food 1,598,580 1.5 23,979
Program....................
Special Milk Program........ 18,075 1.5 271
-------------------------------------------
Total................. 8,488,050 1.5 127,321
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHOOL BREAKFAST DEMOS
Question. Please give the subcommittee an update on the School
Breakfast demos.
Answer. USDA is continuing preparations to commence the
demonstration of universal free school breakfast in school year 2000-
2001. A rigorous study design has been developed with the assistance of
a contractor and a panel of National experts. The design document,
along with a literature review that summarizes the current knowledge
about the relationship between breakfast and learning, was completed in
December 1999; these documents are now available on the Food and
Nutrition Service website.
A Federal Register notice announcing the application process for
school food authorities (SFAs) who wish to participate was published in
early December 1999. School districts throughout the country have
expressed interest in participating in the pilot project demonstration.
A total of 386 school districts from 43 States submitted applications.
Selection of the six school districts to participate in the pilot
projects will occur in early Spring 2000. These districts will be
selected to be geographically dispersed, with a blend of urban and
rural areas, and consideration given to socioeconomic conditions.
In addition, the process of selecting an evaluation contractor to
collect and analyze data and produce a final report is underway. The
request for proposals (RFP) for the evaluation of the pilot projects
was mailed to over 60 potential offerors in February 2000. Proposals
were submitted to FNS at the end of March; we expect to make a final
selection of the evaluation contractor by early July 2000.
NUTRITION EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Question. The fiscal year 2001 proposed budget has an increase of
$2 million for Nutrition Education and Training. Was the study that was
directed by the Committee used in forming this request?
Answer. The request in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget of
$2 million in funding for the Nutrition Education and Training (NET)
Program is designed to help States maintain the nutrition education
infrastructures they have built up through NET over the past 20 years.
While the Administration is exploring budget options for the future
that would implement the broader nutrition education coordination
strategies outlined in the report directed by Congress, it has
requested NET funding for a number of years as a critical tool to
support nutrition education efforts at the State level.
``The Promoting Healthy Eating: An Investment in the Future''
report on nutrition education in Federal nutrition assistance programs,
prepared by FNS pursuant to the Agriculture Appropriations Act for
fiscal year 2000, identifies a number of important actions that would
strengthen nutrition education within and across FNS programs. One of
the actions identified was to restore the appropriation for NET. The
report notes that ``Over the last 10 years, the inconsistency of NET
funding levels has complicated the coordination and long-term planning
of nutrition education services. While Team Nutrition has made
available many creative nutrition education resources and strategies
for State and local government, implementation is limited. Without the
infrastructure supported by NET, States face diminished capacities to
conduct programs and to perform the vital leadership functions of
assessment, policy development and quality assurance needed to promote
implementation.'' (p. 17)
Nutrition education in the Child Nutrition Programs is designed to
be supported through two complementary, integrated mechanisms--NET and
Team Nutrition. NET has provided the infrastructure required by State
and local agencies to deliver the Team Nutrition materials at schools
and child care settings participating in the Child Nutrition Programs.
Without NET, delivery mechanism for either National Child Nutrition
Initiatives like Team Nutrition or more localized approaches and
projects.
ALTERNATIVE PROTEIN PRODUCTS
Question. On March 9, 2000, the Food and Nutrition Service issued a
final rule that allows full replacement of meat, poultry, and seafood
with Alternative Protein Products (APPs) such as soy and whey protein
in the child nutrition programs.
Why did the agency change the name of Vegetable Protein Products
(VPPs) to Alternate Protein Products? Does not this name change infer a
substitution rather than an alternate choice of one protein for
another? Is it the agency's intent that Alternate Protein Products
replace rather than substitute meat, poultry, and seafood available in
the child nutrition programs?
Answer. We changed the name of Vegetable Protein Products (VPPs) to
Alternate Protein Products (APPs) to permit the use of protein products
that are vegetable-based as well as products derived from animal
sources such as whey-based protein products. In addition, we did not
want to restrict the use of any alternate protein products that might
be developed in the future that were not vegetable-based. We believe
the term APPs, as opposed to the term VPP, most accurately reflects the
fact that protein is available from a variety of sources, including
vegetable-based sources. This name change was not intended to imply a
replacement or a substitution, rather it was intended to provide
schools with the flexibility of expanding their menus to offer children
a meat alternative in addition to those currently available such as
cheese, peanut butter and dry beans. It was our intention that
Alternate Protein Products would expand the number of protein food
items to satisfy the cultural, ethnic and special dietary needs of a
diverse student body.
Question. Why does the agency not require blended meat products
with more than 30 percent (VPPs) be clearly identified and labeled in a
non-misleading way?
Answer. Food product labeling is regulated by both the Food Safety
Inspection Service (FSIS) in USDA and by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) in the Department of Health and Human Services.
FSIS labeling regulations cover meat, poultry and egg products. FDA
labeling requirements cover all other non-meat foods such as shellfish,
fruit, milk and grain products. Current FSIS and FDA rules require food
manufacturers to list, by common name, the ingredients used in the
formulation of processed food products on the label for that product.
Information about the source or type of protein will be clearly
indicated in the ingredient listing, such as whey protein concentrate
or hydrolyzed soy protein. However, according to FSIS and FDA
regulations, percent labeling is voluntary.
With regard to the point of service menu labeling, we encourage
program administrators to provide menus that accurately describe menu
items served to students and their parents to assist them in making
choices that meet their dietary demands. Clear point of service menu
labeling can assist students and their parents in making menu
selections consistent with their dietary needs.
We plan to work with representatives of the food industry, school
food service directors, FSIS, FDA and other interested parties to
develop voluntary labeling for both products and menus.
Question. On days when products composed entirely of VPPs are
served to fit the needs of religious and ethnically diverse
populations, is a meat entree required to be served also? If not, why?
Answer. On days when products composed entirely of APPs are served
to meet the needs of religious and ethnically diverse populations, a
meat entree is not required. However, we do believe that menu planners
are likely to use APPs as a choice, not as the only entree available.
This is consistent with the use of other meat alternates such as
cheese, peanut butter and dry beans. Many factors go into menu planning
for our programs--preferences of those consuming the meals, economics,
availability of foods, and the need to meet program meal patterns as
well as the nutrition standards, including the Dietary Guidelines for
Americans' recommendation that people consume a variety of foods. We
stress the importance of schools and institutions offering choices and
believe this practice to be the general rule.
Given these factors, we believe that menu planners will provide
choices and variety to the greatest extent possible and that they will
use APPs appropriately and will take into account the varied dietary
demands of all program participants.
Question. How is the agency ensuring that schools who use VPP/meat
blended products are in a readily fortified form so that all products
meet the same quality and consistency?
Answer. Manufacturers are required to document that the amount and
quality of protein meets the levels specified in the final rule.
Further, schools may specify that products are fortified. Finally,
manufacturers may participate in the Child Nutrition (CN) labeling
program. The CN labeling program has reviewed labels of products
containing VPP since 1984 and will continue to do so for APP labels.
The CN labeling program, which is widely used by the food manufacturers
who market their products to the Child Nutrition Programs, provides
information on how products are to be credited under the meal patterns
established for each program.
Question. Why did the agency choose to not require fortification of
these APPs when research shows that increased consumption of soy has
been found to cause deficiency systems of calcium, magnesium,
manganese, iron and zinc?
Answer. The Food and Nutrition Service is not aware of any
scientific research showing that increased consumption of soy has led
to the deficiencies enumerated. However, we are aware of current
research indicating that eating a variety of foods will generally
ensure adequate mineral intake. This research further suggests that
unrestricted use of highly fortified APPs could actually result in
excessive intakes of iron and zinc.
When the VPP regulations were first developed in 1983, we required
that VPPs used in the school meals programs be fortified according to
our specifications. When we recently revised the requirements on VPPs,
we eliminated our special fortification requirement. The requirement
had previously been eliminated for schools using the Nutrient Standard
Menu Planning System. The new rule extends to all schools the option to
purchase the same products available to commercial markets, as well as
allowing the food industry to directly market their products to
schools.
USDA's nutrition standards for school meals require that meals,
averaged over a week, meet one-third of the Recommended Daily Allowance
(RDA) for key nutrients, including iron. Schools may continue to
purchase fortified products if they are needed to ensure menus meet the
nutrition standards. We believe the decision to purchase fortified
products should rest with the local school, based on the nutrient
content of other menu items. We believe that the food industry is in
the best position to determine if and to what extent APPs should be
fortified based on available research and the needs and preferences of
consumers.
STUDIES AND REPORTS
Question. FNS was directed to provide information to the committee
relating to the effectiveness of adolescents and older children
participating in the after-school program and provide views on the
advisability of expanding the availability of free or reduced price
meals under this authority to children under the age of 12. What is the
status of this request?
Answer. The enactment of the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition
Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-336), on October 31, 1998,
expanded the availability of afterschool snack programs in a
significant manner. In essence, it made them available to every child
through age 18 in every public and nonprofit private primary and
secondary school in the Nation. It also made them available to children
through age 18 that attend afterschool programs operated by public and
nonprofit private organizations in areas in which at least half of the
children are eligible for free and reduced price meals. The Department
initially proposed expansion of the afterschool snack program in its
1998 reauthorization proposals and fully supported the version of the
provision enacted into law.
FNS shares the belief reflected in the Committee's directive that
afterschool programs are an effective way of providing supervision to a
vulnerable population and that the availability of nutrition benefits
can be helpful in drawing children to these programs. As we gain more
experience under the existing provisions of the law, we may be in a
better position to consider whether further expansion of benefits and/
or eligibility is warranted. We would certainly support an evaluation
of the effectiveness of these programs after they have become more
widely utilized.
______
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE
Question. What is the status of the agency's efforts to streamline
regulations and eliminate carcass by carcass requirements in the HACCP
Inspection environment?
Answer. FSIS has undertaken a comprehensive review of its
regulations, policy notices, and policy memoranda for consistency with
the HACCP-based inspection system. The review was announced in the
December 29, 1995, Federal Register as an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR) entitled ``FSIS Agenda for Change: Regulatory
Review.'' In it, the Agency said that it would determine which
regulatory procedures and requirements were still needed and which
needed to be modified, streamlined, or eliminated. The ANPR identified
several categories of meat and poultry products inspection regulations
that would be reviewed.
Published on the same day as the ANPR--December 29, 1995--were some
of the rulemakings needed to streamline existing requirements and carry
out the FSIS food safety strategy. These included a proposed rule to
eliminate the FSIS prior-approval system for substances added to meat
and poultry products (FDA issued a companion rule) and a final rule
eliminating unnecessary duplication in the approval system for meat and
poultry labels. Since the ``Regulatory Review'' ANPR was published,
several ``HACCP-consistent'' rulemakings occurring over the past three
years have streamlined requirements or replaced prescriptive
requirements with performance standards. These include: issuing a final
rule eliminating prior approval requirements for facilities and
equipment, eliminating prior approval requirements for proprietary
substances and non-food compounds used in meat and poultry
establishments, issuing a final rule on performance standards for the
production of certain meat and poultry products, issuing a final rule
on revised sanitation requirements for meat and poultry establishments,
and issuing a final rule revising regulations governing the refusal,
suspension, or withdrawal of inspection services (including
determinations of HACCP system inadequacies).
A number of dockets remain under development within the Agency with
final publication expected during fiscal year 2000. These include
regulations governing water retention in meat and poultry (proposed
rule published September 11, 1998), chilling requirements for
slaughtered poultry, processing and handling temperature requirements
for meat and poultry, and the elimination of requirements for partial
quality control programs (proposed rule published May 18, 1999).
FSIS has also completed action on a list of priority regulatory
changes provided to the Agency by the industry following a May 20, 1998
hearing before the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy,
and Poultry. The top five rulemakings requested by industry were those
dealing with:
--Procedures for industry appeals of FSIS decisions and rules of
practice for proceedings under the Federal Meat Inspection Act
(FMIA) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA). A final
rule was published on November 29, 1999.
--Sanitation at official establishments. A final rule was published
on October 20, 1999.
--Substances approved for use in the preparation of livestock and
poultry products. FSIS simultaneously published the substances
final rule and the final rule on red meat irradiation on
December 23, 1999 so that future activity by FDA on
irradiation--as well as other additive approvals--can be
handled by FDA rulemaking without separate rulemaking by FSIS.
--The elimination of prior approval of proprietary substances and
non-food compounds was accomplished in the Agency's final rule
on revised sanitation requirements, which was published on
October 20, 1999.
--Performance standards for certain cooked meat and poultry products
were published in a final rule on January 6, 1999.
Lower-priority actions specified by industry include rulemakings
on: (1) performance standards for perishable and shelf-stable ready-to-
eat products (a proposed rule to be completed during fiscal year 2001);
performance standards for perishable, non-ready-to-eat products (a
proposed rule to be completed during fiscal year 2001); and, (3) the
elimination of requirements for partial quality control programs (a
final rule to be completed during fiscal year 2000).
The Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection
Act require post-mortem inspection of all carcasses by Federal
inspectors. Absent any amendment of these Acts, carcass-by-carcass
inspection remains a requirement of the Federal meat and poultry
inspection program. However, in a case recently brought before a
District Court, it was ruled that the Secretary of Agriculture has the
discretion to decide that the inspection of each carcass need not be
``organoleptic.'' The implications of this decision may lead to further
regulatory streamlining.
Question. The budget request includes new language which authorizes
the Secretary to transfer funds to FSIS to cover unbudgeted expenses in
the event of a food safety emergency. Why is the Department's existing
reprogramming authority not adequate in this case? Please provide a
history of all occurrences of food safety emergencies in which the
funds available to FSIS were insufficient to meet needs arising from
the emergency.
Answer. New appropriations language authorizing funding transfers
is included in the budget request since the Secretary's previous
authority to transfer funds between Agencies has expired. Two types of
significant events would warrant use of the transfer authority: (1) a
costly nationwide recall involving large amounts of product that would
constrain the Agency's ability to fund its other food safety efforts;
and (2) massive outbreaks of foodborne illness, such as that which
might be the result of a bioterrorist action, which overwhelm the
Agency's ability, given existing resources, to protect public health.
Funds transferred in these situations would cover the cost of emergency
personnel deployments, laboratory analysis, and inspector recruitment
and hiring.
During a bioterrorist event, FSIS would assume the lead in
coordinating the local, State, and federal authorities that comprise
the Foodborne Outbreak Response Coordination Group (FORCG). Proper
execution of this role would require dedicated manpower and a state-of-
the-art communications capability. Additional personnel, travel, and
equipment would also be needed to conduct on-site investigations in the
``zone of contamination,'' as well as trace backs of many more
implicated lots of product than in a usual investigation when only 1 or
2 products are implicated. Emergency deployment of personnel and
supporting resources would require emergency funding so as not to
divert resources from core food safety activities.
FSIS has in the past responded to food safety emergencies as they
arise, however, the pace of the Agency's response is hampered by the
need to first assess where within the Agency funds might be available
to cover emergency personnel redeployments or increased laboratory
costs as these emergencies arise. A large scale, nationwide, recall of
product can result in direct costs to FSIS of over $300,000 in a brief
period of time. It is estimated that FSIS could expend close to
$200,000 for travel by public health and investigative staff and
laboratory costs in the event of an act of bioterrorism in a major
metropolitan area. Food safety emergencies late in a fiscal year are
especially difficult since flexibility is limited when most funds are
already obligated. In 1997, the costs related to a massive recall of
ground beef produced in Nebraska caused the Agency to impose
restrictions on travel by both support staff and processing inspectors,
many of whom have patrol assignments visiting several establishments on
a daily basis. The cost of this recall of ground beef was among a
number of factors contributing to the Agency's fiscal year 1997 Anti-
Deficiency Act violations. Other high-priority activities of the Agency
must be postponed or cancelled as funds originally budgeted to support
them are redirected to deal with emergency situations. For example, as
a result of the 1999 outbreak of listeriosis in ready-to-eat hot dogs
and lunchmeat products, FSIS was unable to provide training for new
Epidemiology Officers to coordinate emergency response activities at
the State and local level. Other examples of postponed, high priority
activities include inspector recruitment efforts and HACCP
implementation programs, such as the HIMP Models project.
The following is a listing of all product recalls and examples of
food safety emergencies handled by FSIS over the previous five years:
EXAMPLES OF FOOD SAFETY EMERGENCIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YEAR PRODUCT PROBLEM TYPE LOCATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000................................. BONELESS BEEF.......... POSSIBLE PRODUCT GENESSEO, IL
TAMPERING (SYRINGE).
1999................................. BEEF CARCASSES......... ALLEGED PRODUCT MILWAUKEE, WI
TAMPERING (INVOLVING
CONTAMINATION WITH HIV
TAINTED BLOOD).
1999................................. PORK DUMPLINGS......... ILLEGALLY IMPORTED PORK COLUMBIA, MD
DUMPLINGS FROM KOREA.
1999................................. BEEF CARCASSES......... PRODUCT ADULTERATED COLUMBUS, NE
WITH E. COLI O157:H57.
1999................................. BEEF CARCASSES......... INVESTGATION OF ALLEGED WALLULA, WA
UNSANITARY PRACTICES
AND ADULTERATED
PRODUCT.
1999................................. BEEF CARCASSES......... CUSTOM VIOLATION, HARRSON, AR
PRODUCT ADULTERATED
WITH E-COLI O157:H7.
1999................................. BEEF CARCASSES......... ALLEGED DES FINDINGS IN CHICAGO, IL
SWITZERLAND.
1999................................. CHICKEN BREASTS........ METAL CONTAMINATION IN ROME, GA
CHICKEN BREASTS.
1999................................. HOT DOGS............... HOT DOGS ADULTERATED MADISON, FL
WITH LISTERIA.
1999................................. BEEF CARCASSES......... E-COLI O157:H57 VARIOUS STATES
OUTBREAK ON BEEF
CARCASSES.
1998................................. HOT DOGS............... LISTERIA INVESTIGATION. ZEELAND, MI
1998................................. HOT DOGS............... HOT DOGS ADULTERATED FOREST CITY, AR
WITH LISTERIA.
1998................................. BEEF................... SPOILAGE IN BEEF OCALA, FL
PRODUCTS.
1997................................. POULTRY................ SPOILAGE IN POULTRY ROGERS, AR
PRODUCTS.
1997................................. MEAT AND POULTRY....... DIOXIN CONTAMINATION... NATIONWIDE
1997................................. GROUND BEEF............ E-COLI O157:H57 NATIONWIDE
OUTBREAK IN GROUND
BEEF PATTIES/BURGERS.
1996................................. MEAT AND POULTRY....... RODENT DEFILED PRODUCTS TAMUNING, GUAM
RECEIVED FROM OTHER
COUNTRIES.
1996................................. MEAT AND POULTRY....... SPOILAGE IN MEAT AND TROY, FL
POULTRY PRODUCTS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please describe the arrangement under which the
Agricultural Marketing Service performs egg safety activities through
contract or cooperative agreement for FSIS, including the dollar amount
of such agreements.
Answer. FSIS has a cooperative agreement with the Agricultural
Marketing Service (AMS) to cross-utilize AMS graders to perform routine
egg product inspection and other related services. Included in the
agreement is a provision that FSIS will provide egg products inspectors
to perform routine egg grading and other service to AMS. The estimated
amount of reimbursements provided to each agency is $130,000 for fiscal
year 2000. These agreements will be proposed for modification under the
new Egg Safety Action Plan.
Question. Please provide an update on the FAIM program, including
funds obligated to date and projected needs in future years.
Answer. Nationwide FAIM implementation for Federal inspectors is
scheduled to be completed over a five-year period. Implementation
started in fiscal year 1996 and is on schedule to be completed at the
end of fiscal year 2000. Although FAIM implementation will be completed
on schedule by the end of fiscal year 2000, in fiscal year 2001 and
future years, funding will be required to (a) replenish obsolete and
depreciated equipment/software; (b) support a user population of 5,500
inspectors with telecommunications, maintenance, technical support, and
supplies; and (c) develop and deploy new software applications as the
system evolves to meet new inspection requirements. A table of actual
and estimated obligations is provided.
[The information follows:]
Field Automation and Information Management
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year Expenditures
1996.......................................................... 7,230
1997.......................................................... 9,485
1998.......................................................... 8,023
1999.......................................................... 7,524
2000.......................................................... 8,893
2001.......................................................... 8,023
FSIS began an initiative to extend the FAIM project to the State
inspection programs in fiscal year 1999 as a multi-year capital
investment to assist States in meeting mandatory HACCP requirements.
Under this initiative State inspectors receive identical equipment,
software, training and technical support as FSIS inspectors. Completion
of State FAIM implementation is dependent upon individual States
obtaining the necessary matching funds. Fifteen States will have
secured sufficient funding to complete FAIM implementation by the end
of fiscal year 2000, and FSIS plans to work with the remaining 10
States in fiscal year 2001 and future years. The State FAIM project's
costs are segregated from Federal FAIM as a separate budget activity
with laboratory upgrades and HACCP training under Special Assistance
for State Programs. In fiscal year 1999 $2.2 million was spent for
State FAIM and it is estimated that $3.9 million and funds carried over
will be spent in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001.
Question. The Senate report accompanying the fiscal year 2000
appropriations act urges the Secretary to provide at least $3,200,000
for Codex alimentarius activities for fiscal year 2000. Please provide
the estimated level of Codex support provided for fiscal year 2000. Is
the fiscal year 2001 request adequate to support the United States'
participation in this organization?
Answer. The direct funding of the activities of the U.S. Codex
Office is provided for in the budget of the Food Safety and Inspection
Service under the Codex budget activity. Estimated direct Codex funding
is $707,000 in fiscal year 2000 and funding of $2,039,000 is proposed
in fiscal year 2001. FSIS also funds travel for the chairman of the
Codex Alimentarius in the amount of $30,000 for fiscal years 2000 and
2001. Two former Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) employees have been
added to the Codex staff to work with the chairman. These amounts
exclude spending by either other USDA agencies or other Departments in
support of Codex activities such as the travel and personnel costs of
the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), Foreign Agriculture Service
(FAS), and U.S. Trade Representative, Commerce and State Department
staff that are sent as delegates to meetings of Codex Committees. FAS
also expends funds for programs of support to developing countries
which indirectly advance U.S. Codex interests. Codex interests are
served by Agricultural Attaches around the world in the handling of
demarches to foreign capitals on specific Codex issues. Affixing firm
dollar levels to these activities with respect to Codex is not
practicable.
FSIS' fiscal year 2001 budget request is adequate to fund the
Agency's activities supporting the United States' participation in the
Codex Alimentarius Commission.
Question. Does the budget request assume enactment of legislation
allowing interstate shipment of state inspected meat? If so, please
provide a budget cross-walk that reflects fiscal year 2001 needs if
this legislation is not enacted.
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget includes an initiative for
comprehensive reviews of all State Inspection Programs, which is
justified in part to prepare for enactment of legislation to permit
interstate shipment of State inspected meat and poultry. Whether or not
this legislation is enacted, FSIS will increase the frequency and
intensity of its State reviews to ensure HACCP compliance. Currently,
State reviews are staggered over a three-year period. State programs
inspect many of the very small plants, which recently implemented HACCP
in January 2000. FSIS worked closely with the very small plants to
provide needed technical assistance, and comprehensive reviews in
fiscal year 2001 will provide follow-up assistance to address and
resolve any compliance issues that may arise in the first year of
HACCP-based State inspection. Reviewing all State programs in the same
year will enable FSIS to assist the States in preventing problems that
may develop if reviews are delayed for two or three years.
Question. The budget request reflects $943,094 in fiscal year 1999
funds which lapse. Please explain why it was therefore necessary for
this subcommittee to provide $8,000,000 above the fiscal year 2000
budget request for filling of inspector vacancies and recruitment of
new inspectors.
Answer. The $943,094 in unobligated fiscal year 1999 funds which
lapsed was intentionally held in reserve to cover unforeseen upward
adjustments in obligations. This reserve is intended to guard against
unintentional violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, which occurred in
fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, and to ensure sound fiscal
management of the food safety program. This amount is far less than the
standard recommended reserve of two percent of the Agency's budget.
Fiscal year 1999 unobligated funds which lapsed are only 11.8
percent of the amount provided in fiscal year 2000 for filling
inspector vacancies and for the recruitment of new inspectors to meet
estimated increases in industry demand for new services. Had FSIS
obligated all $943,094 for hiring additional inspectors in fiscal year
1999, a significant increase in fiscal year 2000 inspection resources
would still be needed.
______
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
FARM SAFETY NET INITIATIVE
Question. Assuming that the President's Farm Safety Initiative is
not enacted into law, what increases in conservation technical
assistance would be needed for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. Assuming that the President's Farm Safety Net Initiative is
not enacted into law, an increase in Conservation Technical Assistance
of $86 million over the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level is needed.
Question. What would the adjusted ceiling for staff be should the
Farm Safety Initiative not be enacted into law in fiscal year 2001?
Answer. Should the Farm Safety Net Initiative not be enacted into
law in fiscal year 2001, the adjusted staff year ceiling would be
11,344 based on the assumption of a technical assistance reimbursement
level of $75 million for the Wetlands Reserve and the Conservation
Reserve Programs.
WATERSHED LOAN PROGRAM SUBSIDY
Question. For fiscal year 2001 the President's budget request
proposes $4.17 million in subsidy budget authority for a new $60
million loan program. How many projects would be funded by this amount
of loan authority?
Answer. It is estimated that $60 million would address between 10
and 20 rehabilitation projects. This is difficult to answer
definitively, since the scope and complexity of needed work varies
significantly with each project.
Question. How will projects be chosen to receive loans for this
work?
Answer. NRCS will develop a risk-based ranking system to score loan
applicants which would take in to account the greatest human health and
safety, as well as environmental concerns. The applicants'
qualifications for a loan would also need to be factored into the
priority process.
The rehabilitation program will be modeled after the Rural
Utilities Service (RUS) Municipal Electric Loan Program, in terms of
borrowers, defaults, interest, pre-payments, and loan characteristics.
FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CRP AND WRP
Question. How much funding is available for technical assistance
for CRP and WRP due to the limitation on the use of CCC funds? Does the
President's proposed budget request require the passage of legislation
to provide technical assistance for CRP and WRP at $75 million from
CCC?
Answer. Fund transfers through the Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC) are limited by statute through the Section 11 cap. In fiscal year
2000, NRCS's portion of these funds was $10.74 million.
The President's budget proposes to increase the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) acreage cap to 40 million acres and that the
annual enrollment in the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) be set at
250,000 acres.
The Farm Service Agency (FSA) has estimated that the technical
assistance needs in fiscal year 2001 would be $81,866,909 for NRCS and
$4,593,883 for the Forest Service to implement the 40 million-acre CRP
program. It would take $22.5 million to implement the WRP program as
contained in the President's budget. Technical assistance funding for
the two programs combined would equal $109.01 million.
If NRCS receives the same level of funding from CCC that it did in
fiscal year 2000 ($10.74 million) we would experience a $93.62 million
shortfall. Without removal of the CCC Section 11 cap, or some
designated additional discretionary appropriations, NRCS would not be
able to implement these programs in fiscal year 2001.
ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE TO AMERICAN INDIANS AND ALASKA NATIVES
Question. How does the department plan to focus additional
resources to assist American Indians and Alaska Natives regarding their
conservation needs other than through the designation of $16 million of
EQIP funds in fiscal year 2001?
Answer. If additional resources are allocated USDA will use them to
do the following types of activities: Accelerated technical assistance
through additional staff to support conservation planning and
applications. Accelerated outreach with tribes regarding USDA programs
and activities including field trials, field days, etc. Accelerated
soil survey's of Native American lands.
Question. If there is no increase in EQIP funds will the Department
still earmark these funds for assistance to American Indians and Alaska
Natives?
Answer. The Department has earmarked $5 million (2.5 percent) in
fiscal year 1997, $8.1 million (4.0 percent) in fiscal year 1998, and
$8.7 million (5 percent) in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 for
EQIP activities on Native American and Alaskan Native lands. If there
is no increase in the fiscal year 2001 EQIP budget, the Department will
continue to earmark 5 percent of the EQIP allocation for Native
American and Alaskan Native concerns.
OPERATION OF PLANT MATERIALS CENTERS
Question. The fiscal year 2001 proposed budget would continue the
operation of the plant materials centers at the fiscal year 2000 level
of $9.1 million. The explanatory notes state that the ongoing plant
materials development would continue at a somewhat reduced rate. What
materials development is ongoing and what would be at a ``somewhat''
reduced rate?
Answer. Level funding over the past several years has reduced our
ability to perform studies on plant materials by approximately 12
percent. In fiscal year 1999, over 14,000 plant collections were being
evaluated on 73,000 plots by the Centers and 22 new plants were
released for commercial production. If funding continues at a level
rate as it has for the last 4 years, outputs from the Centers will be
reduced. There are 26 plant materials centers around the country that
maintain an ongoing program to develop plant technology for such
critical issues as buffer strips, invasive species problems, and
habitat restoration with native species. Products from this work have
made significant contributions to conservation programs like, WRP,
WHIP, CRP and others. Plant centers will become more limited in their
ability to undertake new studies and to develop new technology and/or
plant releases.
RESCISSION OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Question. Why did a rescission of $7.8 million in financial
assistance for Public Law 534 and Public Law 566 occur?
Answer. The Department opted to utilize its authority to rescind 15
percent of the financial assistance for Watershed and Flood Protection
Operations as a means of complying with the omnibus budget bill while
minimizing impact on technical assistance.
IMPACT OF GENERAL PROVISION SECTION 717
Question. How has the General Provision Section 717 of Public Law
106-78 affected this agency?
Answer. General Provision Section 717, Public Law 106-78 has had a
positive impact on the agency by allowing NRCS to non-competitively
enter into cooperative agreements with conservation partners under the
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) to restore and protect America's
wetlands.
EQIP NATIONAL PRIORITY AREAS
Question. In the fiscal year 1999 Senate Report 105-212 and in
fiscal year 2000 Senate Report 106-80, the Committee directed the
agency to provide adequate funding for two designated National priority
area pilot projects. It is the Committee's understanding that no funds
have been obligated for the Mississippi Delta National Priority Area
Pilot Project. However, in fiscal year 2000 the Colorado Salinity Basin
National Priority Area Pilot Project received ``special emphasis''
dollars amounting to $1.3 million. How has this discrepancy occurred?
Answer. In accordance with fiscal year 1999 Senate Report 105-212,
the Department established two EQIP National Priority Areas; the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Area and the Mississippi Delta
Area. The Mississippi Delta National Priority Area received $1.3
million in both fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
STUDIES AND REPORTS
Question. The Committee directed the NRCS to provide the committee
with a detailed analysis of the aging water systems for flood control
structures and the hardship placed on the local conservation and flood
control districts and to provide a comprehensive strategy for
rehabilitation of these structures. The Committee has not received this
analysis. What is the status of this analysis and strategy plan?
Answer. The report is in draft form. The final report will be
available on or before May 1, 2000.
______
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER
Question. What is USDA's fiscal year 2001 Information Technology
(IT) budget?
Answer. According to the OMB Exhibit A-11 submitted in January
2000, the Department plans to spend approximately $1,316,100,000 on its
fiscal year 2001 IT budget.
Question. What part of USDA's fiscal year 2001 budget is for new IT
investments, such as acquisition of new technology?
Answer. Consistent with revised reporting guidance of the Office of
Management and Budget, USDA includes funding for new IT investments in
the category of Development/Modernization/Enhancement. The latest
report submitted to OMB estimates that approximately 50 percent of
USDA's information technology budget is dedicated to this category.
Question. How much of USDA's fiscal year 2001 IT budget represents
costs for personnel, and what is the total number of FTE's that the
fiscal year 2001 budget supports?
Answer. Approximately 23 percent of the budget is for salaries and
benefits for government personnel who perform information technology
related functions 51 percent or more of their time. This supported an
estimated 4,964 FTE's as of August, 1999.
Question. How much of USDA's fiscal year 2001 IT budget is for
contractor support services, and what did USDA spend for such services
in fiscal year 1999/2000?
Answer. According to our August 1999 OMB report, USDA contractor
support services will be approximately 19 percent of the budget for
fiscal year 2001. This includes maintenance used in support of
equipment, software or other services. Contract support services for
fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 are as follows:
--Fiscal year 1999--$277,434,826
--Fiscal year 2000--$293,831,647
CAPITAL PLANNING AND INVESTMENT CONTROL (CPIC) PROCESS
Question. USDA's OCIO budget says that the CPIC program has
established a process for the Department to select, manage, and
evaluate the results for all major investments in information
technology.
What were the major investments reviewed and approved for fiscal
year 2001 by USDA's Executive Information Technology Investment Review
Board as part of the CPIC process?
Answer. The major investments reviewed, and decisions, for those
investments in the ``Select'' and ``Control'' phases are included in
the following charts. [The information follows:]
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE EITIRB REGARDING USDA MAJOR INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS FOR BUDGET YEAR 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investment
Rank (H,M,L) Decision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Select Phase:
Employment Complaints High.............. Approve
Tracking System.
Integrated Acquisition .................. Defer
System (IAS).
Programs Funding Control High.............. Defer
System (PFCS).
REE Information System Medium/High....... Approve
(REEIS).
Integrated Personnel System High.............. Approve
for the 21st Century (IPS
21).
Guaranteed Loan System (GLS) High.............. Approve
Multi-Family Integrated High.............. Approve
System (MFIS).
Community and Utility High.............. Approve
Business System (CUBS).
USDA Telecommunications High.............. Defer
Enterprise Network.
International Trade Data High.............. Approve
System (ITDS).
Entry, Processing, and Low............... Disapprove
Inquiry System (EPIC)/
Personnel Office Desktop
Solution/PODS.
Combined Administrative High.............. Approve
Management System (CAMS).
Control Phase CORE High.............. Continue
Accounting System (CORE).
Project 615................. High.............. Continue
Foundation Financial High.............. Continue
Information System (FFIS).
Shared Information Systems.. High.............. Continue
Evaluate Phase:
Processed Commodities High.............. Continue
Inventory Management System
(PCIMS).
Integrated System High.............. Continue
Acquisition Project (ISAP).
Agency Financial Management High.............. Continue
System (AFMS).
Food Stamp Program High.............. Maintain
Integrated Information
System (FSPIIS).
Integrated Personnel System Medium............ Maintain
(IPS).
Field Automation and High.............. Continue
Information Management
(FAIM).
Management Services Low............... Terminate
Information System (MSIS).
Dedicated Loan Origination High.............. Continue
System (DLOS).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Has the USDA established performance measures for each
and every one of these IT investments? If so, what are they for each
project. If not, why?
Answer. In accordance with the Department's CPIC process, each
agency is required to establish performance measures for their
respective information technology investments during the ``select''
phase of capital planning and investment control for fiscal year 2002.
Agencies with projects in the ``evaluate'' phase will conduct post-
implementation reviews to ensure that program missions are being met,
and the performance measure accurately reflects contribution of the IT
investment to the mission. As the CPIC process is now in its early
stages within the Department, much of this is already being done. While
USDA does not yet have performance measures for all of the IT systems
listed above, the OCIO is working with each agency to develop mission
and program related performance measures so that the CPIC process can
be in full effect for the fiscal year 2002 budget process. Following
are the performance measures for some of our major IT systems.
Research education and economics information system
Performance measures are to be developed through modeling user
behavior, through an ongoing Quality Assurance program to assess system
performance, and through establishing user feedback mechanisms as part
of system usage. Performance Indicators include:
--Number of accesses per user profile
--Number of reports requested per user access
--Number of returns to access system
--Number of changed user profiles
--Quantifiable responses on Quality Assurance questionnaire
--Character of responses on non-system surveys
Food safety and inspection service--field automation and information
management (FAIM) project
Performance Goals for system implementation include:
--Number of FSIS inspectors trained in FAIM each year through fiscal
year 2005
--Number of FSIS computers deployed to the field each year though
fiscal year 2005
Forest service project 615--IT infrastructure
The Forest Service (FS) is using the ``Hardware Management System--
HMS--to track Project 615 IBM acquisitions, including financial and
inventory information and to develop replacement plans. The HMS tool
provides guidance on replacement planning using market analysis and
utilizing the output from Information Technology Investment Portfolio
System--I-TIPs. The Agency's Project 615 implementation team is
responsible for monitoring the achievement of Project 615 goals and
outcomes. These goals and outcomes are defined in the FS GPRA
Performance Plan. Performance Measures include:
--Cost per seat. Anticipated computer system capital investment level
for hardware and software as currently planned is $1,600 per
seat per year.
--To ensure that the IT infrastructure meets minimum performance
characteristics, yet stays within investment guidelines,
additional measures include disk space per seat, seat/server
capacity utilization, expected versus actual seats, useful life
remaining per unit equipment, and others.
Some example target measures would be:
--One gigabyte server-disk capacity per seat
--75-85 percent seat/server capacity utilization
--Actual versus expected seats of under 110 percent
Field units report on their measures on a regular basis,
documenting reasons for any deviations from performance targets.
Quarterly summaries are prepared with aggregated results that are used
in future planning.
Implementation of the IBM System is critical to the successful
accomplishment of the Forest Service mission. Listed below are key
milestones and measures of success for this project.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Milestone Measure of Success Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 1998.................... Office automation on 615............. 95 percent of Data Completed
General office
automation closed
and transferred to
615.
February 1999................... Full 615 implementation.............. All offices Completed
equipped and
operating with
initial 615
systems for all
employees.
March 1999...................... All offices functional on 615........ All mission work Completed
accomplished on
615 with initial
system.
May 1999........................ Data General phased out.............. Existing systems Completed
transferred from
Data General
computers and made
Y2K compliant on
615.
October 1999.................... New accounting system................ FFIS implemented Completed
service wide
September 1999.................. New Office Automation (O/A) System... Microsoft Office Completed
2000 installed on
desktops.
January 2000.................... GIS project work standardized........ Existing GIS Completed
project work
converted to core
data standards.
June 2000....................... Mainstream E-mail messaging system All employees using On Schedule
(Lotus Notes) implemented. the new messaging
system integrated
with the Office
Automation system.
March 2001...................... GIS project work standardized........ 90 percent of major Plans in Progress
information
systems operating
with corporate
standards and
support.
June 2001....................... Enterprise Management standardized... All server and Plans in Progress
desktops installed
with and managed
by enterprise
systems management
software.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural development--guaranteed loan system (GLS)
Description of performance-based system:
Rural Development and FSA are shifting from primarily making direct
loans to making a significant number of guaranteed loans as part of
their overall role in providing agricultural credit and rural
development assistance. To achieve this objective, the automated system
needs to support the full range of guaranteed loan business activities
in order to:
--Improve availability, accuracy, and timeliness of management
information;
--Provide servicing offices with capability to maintain and manage
their guaranteed loan portfolio;
--Improve the guaranteed program to be more attractive to lenders;
--Provide the capability to effectively monitor lender performance;
--Provide information required by congress, OMB, General Accounting
Office, Office of Inspector General, and United States
Department of Agriculture.
--Fully comply with the Government-wide guidelines documented in the
Joint Financial Management Improvement Program (JFMIP)
Guaranteed Loan System Requirements.
Performance Goals:
--Achieve annual savings of $250,000 through reduced postage and
mailing costs, and a significant reduction in paper costs
facilitated by the use of electronic commerce.
--Achieve reduction in non-performing loans through more timely and
accurate status information. The new system will allow the
Agency to monitor the status of guaranteed loans more closely.
This will allow the Agency to determine which loans are
experiencing problems and implement corrective action sooner.
This will result in a 5 percent reduction in non-performing
loans.
Rural development--dedicated loan origination and servicing system
(DLOS)
DLOS is considered an earned value system in that it identifies
baseline costs, schedules, and performance goals. The DLOS system was
installed in the Production environment and the Centralized Servicing
Center was established in fiscal year 1997 to provide the loan
origination and servicing functions for RHS Single Family Housing
borrowers. Performance indicators used to gauge the success of DLOS are
monitored on an ongoing basis through management reviews and tracking
of key factors including:
--Borrower Delinquency Rates
--Delinquent Loan Accelerations
--Average Response Time in Call Center
--Average Response Time in Field Support
--Customer Service Call Abandon Rates in Call Center
--Collections Call Abandon Rate
--Accuracy of New Loan Set-ups
--Collections Through Treasury Offset Program
--Escrowing of Portfolio
Rural development--multi-family integrated system (MFIS)
MFIS is considered an earned value system in that it identifies
baseline costs, schedules, and performance goals. The MFIS system will
be installed in the Production environment in fiscal year 2000.
Performance indicators that will be used to gauge the success of MFIS
and will be monitored on an ongoing basis through management reviews
and tracking of key factors include:
--Increase the Number of Supervisory Activities Performed
--Reduce Classification ``D'' Projects (Not in Compliance) to Below
Current Levels
--Reduce Delinquency Rates to Below Current Levels
--Reduce the Average Time to Correct Project Findings
--Decrease the Average Time Required to Review and Approve Project
Budgets
--Decrease the Average Time Required to Perform Quarterly and Year-
end Analysis.
Question. How is USDA tracking the performance of all of its IT
investments--in terms of improvements to the business it is supporting?
Answer. The Department has taken great strides to fully institute
its Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) Process. Per the
Office of Management and Budget passback language, the Department has
forwarded the CPIC guide to OMB in March 2000. Integral to the CPIC is
the evaluation of the contribution of an IT investment to the agency's
mission as part of the selection process, monitoring of achievement of
the investment's performance goals as part of the control process; and
performance evaluation of each information technology system. OCIO is
working with Departmental executives to increase the attention to the
``control'' aspect of capital planning during the fiscal year 2002
budget development process. OCIO, in conjunction with agency
executives, will review performance of major investments against
established goals, and is working on an individual basis with each
agency to ensure that CPIC is applied effectively. Eight information
technology systems are currently undergoing a post-implementation
review based on the USDA CPIC guidance, to determine how well those
systems met performance goals and contributed to agency mission.
The Department has a senior level advisory group that reviews the
major information technology--IT--investments in an effort to make
recommendations aligned with the Department's missions and to maximize
efficient and effective utilization of USDA's IT resources.
For fiscal year 2001, the senior level advisory group's review
encompassed IT investments designated major because of their size,
scope, or strategic impact to the Department. The review criteria
included impact on mission, risk, return on investment for new
investments, along with performance criteria--cost, schedule, and
performance goals--for systems that are underway. Additionally, IT
investments in the Evaluate phase were evaluated against Post-
Implementation-Review criteria to determine how the systems were
performing against the original design criteria. The senior level
advisors reviewed and scored the investments based on supporting
documentation prepared by the agencies and met early in December to
develop a consensus on investment scores and priorities. The review
process took approximately two weeks. Their report was reviewed and
voted upon by the Executive Technology Investment Review Board--
EITIRB--prior to being forwarded to the Office of Management and
Budget.
Question. How does the CPIC process address managing and evaluating
the investment for IT personnel, which are IT-related investments, to
ensure that investments in personnel are still cost-effective as
opposed to other options (i.e., outsourcing)?
Answer. All costs for IT investments are evaluated through USDA's
CPIC process. Prior to proposing investments to the Department,
agencies evaluate alternatives for accomplishing IT investments, which
may include using government personnel versus outsourcing. Investment
proposals specifically identify the FTE's associated with initiatives
and as directed by OMB Circular A-11 include the personnel costs for
project management and direct support. In addition, the CPIC investment
proposal process allows the EITIRB to evaluate the business case
presented to justify new investments and their reliance on Federal
support verses outsourcing as a delivery method.
Question. How are investments for contractor support addressed in
the CPIC process to ensure that the investment in contractor support is
cost-effective?
Answer. As stated above, all costs for IT investments are evaluated
through USDA's CPIC process. Prior to proposing investments to the
Department, agencies evaluate alternatives for accomplishing IT
investments, which may include using government personnel versus
outsourcing. Investment proposals specifically identify the FTE's
associated with initiatives and as directed by OMB Circular A-11
include the personnel costs for project management and direct support.
In addition, the CPIC investment proposal process allows the EITIRB to
evaluate the business case presented to justify new investments and
their reliance on Federal support verses outsourcing as a delivery
method. Reliance on contractor support to implement IT initiatives is
often a result of a need for specific skills that cannot be obtained
through the permanent workforce or is the result of a need for
temporary support that is most efficiently provided through
contractors.
IT MORATORIUM
Question. The budget mentions that a supplemental activity to the
CPIC is the IT acquisition moratorium. It says that under the
moratorium, significant investments (over $25,000) are reviewed. It
also says that during 1999, 249 IT acquisition moratorium waivers were
approved. What was the total number of waivers requested in 1999?
Answer. During fiscal year 1999 the OCIO processed 249 waiver
requests for approximately $414.5 million.
Question. What was the total value of the 249 waivers approved?
Answer. During fiscal year 1999, 241 waivers were fully approved
and two were partially approved to expend $386.6 million in fiscal year
1999, 2000, and 2001 funds. Also,two waivers were fully denied and the
requesting agency or OCIO canceled four.
Question. If the OCIO approves such a large number of waivers, then
does the Department really have an IT acquisition moratorium in place?
In that regard, what was the total number and value of waivers denied
in 1999?
Answer. USDA's goal in instituting the IT acquisition moratorium
was not to stop agencies from purchasing IT, but to ensure that they
followed Departmental guidance on the Year 2000 problem and as much as
possible, an IT architectural blueprint. Many approved waivers
contained conditions or stipulations that the agencies must share IT or
coordinate the purchases with other agencies. USDA's use of frequent,
good communications with the Under and Assistant Secretaries, Agency
Heads, and Agency Chief Information Officers has resulted in agencies
understanding and complying with the changing direction of the
moratorium. This was especially evident when Secretary Glickman's
mandate that USDA direct more attention and funds to the Year 2000
conversion effort was so successful. We have also used the moratorium
to move USDA towards a comprehensive capital planning process that is
recognized by OMB as being among the leaders of the Federal Government.
During fiscal year 1999, two waivers were fully denied and the
requesting agency or OCIO canceled four. Denied amounts totaled $27.9
million in fiscal year 1999 and 2000 funds.
INFORMATION SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE
Question. USDA's OCIO budget states that the Department's February
1997 version of its information systems technical architecture is being
expanded and updated. If USDA does not continuously update its
architecture, how can the Department then be positioned to use it as an
effective tool to ensure it is cost-effectively meeting business needs
as opposed to just putting a document on a shelf.
Question. What processes are USDA's OCIO establishing to ensure
that the architecture is continuously updated?
Answer. The updated and expanded version of the architecture
outlines USDA's architecture program, its future architecture
direction, and its current baseline. The major components of the
architecture program are principles and standards, current
architecture, the architecture repository/database, future
architecture, and the associated governance and transformation
processes required to achieve the future architecture direction. We
view the architecture on a continuum. The architecture is never
completed but instead is managed using processes that respond to
continuously changing programmatic requirements and technology
advancements. USDA's approach to architecture aligns with the Federal
Architecture Framework model as endorsed by the Federal CIO Council.
Question. What steps will USDA take to incorporate the new business
models and associated processes and technologies evolving from the e-
commerce revolution?
Answer. USDA agencies are beginning to develop electronic-based
services and program delivery mechanisms and USDA has already
recognized the need to incorporate E-models into its architecture
efforts. USDA's future architecture direction has an ``E'' focus. For
both this year's and last year's IT planning cycles, USDA IT
investments were evaluated based on whether or not electronic program
delivery had been considered. Several agencies have already implemented
systems or are in the process of designing them. While agencies
recognize the need to change their business models to an electronic
government model, much work remains to be done.
E-COMMERCE
Question. USDA's OCIO budget includes about $1.3 million for
contractor support and operating expenses to support E-government/
commerce at the Department. What are the overall planned expenditures
in fiscal year 2001 across all USDA's agencies and offices on E-
government/commerce initiatives (broken out by agency)?
Answer. The Department does not currently track expenditures for E-
government/commerce initiatives apart from overall IT or other related
spending, such as training. Our fiscal year 2002 budget requests
funding to develop a corporate strategy and approach to E-government/
commerce. Among other things, this would provide the Department the
capability to develop common definitions and metrics to assess and
measure E-government/commerce activities; and would include an
inventory of existing and planned initiatives, including expenditures,
across USDA.
Question. What steps has the Department taken to ensure that there
is a common, consistent USDA approach to E-government/commerce
initiatives across the Department so that there is not duplication of
effort?
Answer. We fully recognize and appreciate the need to ensure that
there is a common, consistent approach to E-government/commerce at the
Department. The host of web sites run by USDA agencies are supported by
scores of servers, and other technology, which is decentralized and
often redundant across agencies and even at the state and regional
level.
The Department must act quickly and decisively to develop a
corporate strategy for E-government to ensure that we maximize the
resources that are being devoted to this effort with an emphasis on
sharing lessons and leveraging solutions across USDA. To that end, the
Department is in the process of establishing an E-government working
group, under the direction of the Deputy CIO, with representation from
all agencies and mission areas with E-government initiatives. The
working group represents an important step towards establishing the
common look to E-government that we desire.
Most importantly, the funding we have requested in our fiscal year
2001 budget will enable the Department to develop a coordinated
strategy and ensure that cross-cutting issues which affect all USDA
customers and employees are identified, prioritized and addressed as
agencies pursue E-government initiatives. Our goals include developing
a Department-wide strategy improving coordination, and developing
standardized approaches to cross-cutting issues. These include data
warehousing, data mining, electronic mail and other electronic
directories, online forms, and privacy protection. Training our IT
staff to integrate web-based applications into the Department's
technical infrastructure is another integral component.
Question. What specific programs and benefits (1) are already being
delivered via the Internet, or (2) are expected to be delivered via the
Internet in fiscal year 2001. (List programs/benefits for each agency/
office).
Answer. USDA agencies have a number of E-government related
initiatives in progress, with more applications being developed
regularly. The Department has not yet ascertained which specific
applications are being planned for fiscal year 2001. However, with a
few exceptions, most USDA agencies are at the initial stage of E-
government where agencies are using the Internet to provide the public
electronic access to information about the Department's programs and
services, market information, as well as breaking news. For example:
Today, via the Internet, farmers and agricultural producers can
electronically view public information on USDA programs such as crop
and production reports. They can download and fill-in application forms
for temporary programs such as the Small Hog Operation Program, the
Dairy Market Loss Assistance Program, Crop Disaster Program, the
Livestock Assistance Program, and several forms for the Farm Service
Agency's farm loan programs.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service's--NRCS--PLANTS website
provides a single source of standardized information about plants in
the US and its territories. The database includes all sorts of
information about plants, and is accessed by over 57,000 users per
month.
The Economics Research Service publishes online research reports,
periodicals, new releases, issue papers, and other information on all
aspects of the domestic and international farm and agricultural
economy. Agricultural Outlook reports, state fact sheets, and
Agricultural Trade data bases are all available to anyone with access
to the Internet.
The Rural Development agencies provide data over their web sites
about all of their housing, infrastructure and job creating programs,
as well as links to other sites of interest to the rural development
community. Almost a million citizens viewed these web sites in 1999.
Visitors to the web site of the Risk Management Agency--RMA, which
manages Federal crop insurance, can access and search county actuarial
tables online, by State or crop. There is also an education site to
assist producers and agribusiness in understanding their risk exposure
and responsibility.
Another example is USDA's Forest Service--FS, which is
participating in a one-stop recreation site with seven other Federal
agencies. The site--www.recreation.gov--is part of the Vice-President's
Access America initiative that was established to provide a single
source of information about recreation on federal lands. Citizens can
now reserve campground sites via the Internet. FS is also piloting a
clearinghouse on the Internet for distributing information related to
Forest Plan updates. The clearinghouse application allows the public to
view information generated from the FS' Geographical Information System
(GIS) and relate their comments on the plan to specific locations on a
GIS map.
The Agricultural Research Service--ARS--web sites provide Internet
access to extensive resources for scientists, regulators, farmers and
many other customers. ARS laboratories use the Internet to provide
information about their missions, research programs, results, and
analyses. Technical and semi-technical publications produced in-house
are published electronically; and customers may now subscribe to the
Agricultural Research magazine online. Some 1,500 stakeholders,
including media outlets, commodity groups, educators, and others, have
also signed up for a daily E-mail feed. An interactive web site for
middle school students, ``Science for Kids,'' showcases ARS research
results in ways that demonstrate the importance of agriculture in
people's everyday lives and help students understand and appreciate the
benefits of agricultural research.
The National Agricultural Library--NAL--is also providing increased
electronic access to its unparalleled storehouse of agriculture related
information and to improve the services it provides. NAL maintains the
Agriculture Online Access bibliographic database of more than 3 million
citations to the literature of agriculture and related physical and
social science subjects. NAL is also working in partnership with land-
grant universities and other institutions through the establishment of
the Agriculture Network Information Center--AGNIC--that serves as a
major focal point on the Internet for access to quality information,
subject area experts, and other resources. Funding is needed for new
technology to improve search systems that operate across multiple
institutions and to expand the scope of these initiatives.
The Department's main ``home page--www.usda.gov--has also recently
been redesigned to provide visitors with information about critical
Departmental issues and Secretarial initiatives, regardless of which
agency or mission area they relate to. The homepage provides links to
pages developed and maintained by USDA's agencies. Our E-government
vision includes eventually providing customers a ``portal'' or main web
site, similar to major private sector sites such as Yahoo.com, that
will be organized by subjects, so that visitors can find the
information they want regardless of which agencies might possess it.
The Internet now makes it possible for the Department to provide
real time information to the public about issues critical to their
health and welfare. USDA's broadcast facilities, managed by the Office
of Communications, provide a wealth of information to farmers daily
through radio and satellite transmissions. Daily and weekly radio and
news reports supply information about sign ups for farm programs;
announce results of agricultural research; broadcast major policy
changes; provide consumer news on food prices, nutrition, conservation,
and the environment; and report vital economic news about crop prices
and supplies, as well as crop weather conditions. However, the
broadcast industry is moving quickly to digital standards that our
existing equipment cannot meet. Our goal is to use the Internet to
allow farmers, constituency groups, and the public to take full
advantage of the programs, services, and data at USDA. This means that
we must invest in the kinds of high-speed computers and
telecommunications equipment necessary to handle the voluminous files
required to electronically disseminate video, photographs, radio, and
television messages in digital formats.
Increasingly, USDA agencies are working with State and local
partners, and other agencies, to develop applications that utilize the
Internet to actually conduct E-business. Agencies are trying to meet
the demands of their customers by moving beyond simply providing the
public access to information via the Internet to implementing more
advanced applications to conduct secure transactions online. Processes,
from applying for grants to procuring products and services, are being
web-enabled. For example:
The Food and Nutrition Service--FNS--which is in the forefront of
E-government through its highly successful Electronic Benefits
Transfer--EBT--initiative, has plans to use the Internet to share
information with its state partners; provide authorized users online
access to information to help reduce fraud; and collect information
directly from retailers who support the WIC program. FNS has also begun
planning for an extranet environment that will allow entry to only
users who have direct business with FNS. FNS currently uses an
Electronic Data Interchange--EDI--system in its food distribution
division that enables customers to process some 80 percent of the
orders for the school lunch program. Of course, all of these
applications are being developed with security and privacy as key
components. FNS has also recently developed and deployed an online
Healthy Eating Index (HEI), which allows citizens to input their diets
and receive instant analysis of their nutritional strengths and
weaknesses.
Cooperative States Research and Extension Service--CSREES is a
participant in the Inter-Agency Electronic Grants Committee in the
development of standard processes, standard Federal data sets, and the
design of a ``portal'' to Federal grants activities known as the
Federal Commons. The portal will allow citizens and institutions to
track the status of federal grant proposals online throughout the
entire grants life cycle. When it is completed, constituents will be
able to apply for grants electronically as well as receive award
notices online. This kind of interagency initiative is key to
government's ability to provide citizens with the kind of common
interfaces to government they are demanding; however these projects are
expensive and they depend upon means being found to support interagency
funding that have yet to be developed. CSREES has actually been using
electronic mail to send acknowledgement of proposal receipts for the
past year, reducing turn around time by weeks from the normal paper
intensive process. However, much more work must be done before citizens
can actually submit their proposals online.
The Farm Services Agency has already implemented an award winning
E-business application--the Electronic Bid Entry System--that automates
the bid entry portion of USDA's procurement of commodities that are
exported under foreign food aid programs. With this system, bids for
some $1.2 billion in food for farm aid can be opened and contracts
awarded in two hours. Plus, up to the minute market prices improve
competition, so that more people can be fed for each dollar in aid.
More recently, FSA has developed a system which allows steamship lines
to use the Internet to input bid data. Yet another E-business
application allows FSA to issue payment statements to vendors via E-
mail, with estimated savings to vendors of almost $200,000 per year as
a result.
In 1997, USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service--AMS--became the
first Federal agency to actually use the Internet in the rule-making
process by posting proposed rules for the National Organic Program,
which sets standards for organic produce, for comment on its web site.
As a result, the agency reported receiving over five times the usual
number of comments on the proposed rule. AMS is now focused on
educating employees and managers about potential E-business
opportunities; establishing a viable Internet infrastructure which is
80 percent complete; providing adequate security for that
infrastructure; training staff; and providing training to secure expert
web building support to all AMS users.
Rural Development--RD--agencies are developing web-based
applications to allow more efficient operation of multi-family housing
programs. Over 10,000 changes to tenant certifications, such as changes
in income, etc, are received each month from borrowers. RD plans to
enable those borrowers to transmit this information electronically or
to enter data directly via a web page. Borrower and lender changes for
RD and FSA guaranteed programs are now accepted via Intranet, and all
RD community program reporting is now available through the web.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--APHIS--just
recently launched a new website that will allow customers to submit
online applications to import fruits, vegetables, and animal products
into the United States. APHIS' new website is designed to make the
permit application process easier for our customers, and if it is as
popular as can be expected, it will be expanded to include additional
permit applications. Importers can access the site by going to APHIS'
Home Page at www.aphis.usda.gov and clicking on Import Authorization
System under hot issues.
Question. USDA's OCIO budget also states that web-enabling service
deliver will demand a high-performance and reliable enterprise
telecommunications network. It says that to meet these expectations in
fiscal year 2001, the Department will expand its network to all major
state offices and that significant contract support will be required to
securely expand the enterprise telecommunications network. What will
the cost be in fiscal year 2001 to expand the network and how many
states are being considered when you say all major state offices?
Answer. Fiscal year 2001 reflects the Phase I implementation of our
Universal Telecommunications Network that will be delivered to sixteen
states where our major offices are located. Phase II will extend the
Network to all fifty states. Phase I cost is projected at $4.5 million.
Question. What will be the recurring annual operational and support
annual costs for the network to the states, and what are estimated
annual benefits?
Answer. Our annual operational and suppport costs are projected to
grow from a current $1.6 million to $6.1 million based on program
delivery requirements and Electronic Government initiatives. The
recurring annual costs are expected to increase as the program areas
increase their dependence on information technology to support their
missions. However the unit cost will decrease. For example, in the last
two years USDA has increased its Internet capacity by seven-fold and
increased network reliability while the costs to support these
activities increased 3 fold. Each dollar bought more than 2.3 times
than it previously bought.
Question. What alternatives' analysis has USDA completed to show
that it will be more cost-effective to expand its network to states to
deliver web-enabling service delivery from such a large number of sites
as opposed to delivery of web-based service from just one or two sites?
Answer. USDA's initial architectural design is based on analysis
done as part of the Service Center Initiative's LAN/WAN/Voice project.
The understanding of program direction and future requirements is
essential to effective network design. Network requirements are being
collected from the program community so that the initial architecture
can be independently verified and validated.
COMMON COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT/SERVICE CENTER MODERNIZATION
Question. Describe in detail how USDA will provide one-stop service
to its customers in all 3,000 of its service center sites, especially
since only about 700 sites will house all three service center
agencies. Also describe the mission critical processes for implementing
such a concept and the estimated milestones, time frames and resources
required.
Answer. About 700 of our 2,600 Service Centers will have all three
agencies present. About 1,700 of the remaining 1,900 will have at least
two agencies present, primarily the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA). Around 200 will be
occupied by only one agency on a full-time basis.
Our one-stop vision essentially means that service will be
available anywhere, anytime and in a seamless manner. For customers
with Internet access, this may mean that they may rarely or even never
go to a physical office location at all. They will be able to
electronically ``shop'' at the Service Center via the Internet to
obtain information, set up appointments at their farm site, file
program applications, and change or update information in the files.
Customers who do not have access to the Internet or need ``hands
on'' assistance, will be able to go to any one of the 2,600 Service
Centers and obtain some level of service for all of the programs
offered by the county-based agencies. That level of service will be
different depending on which agencies have staff at that particular
center and the progress in deploying a fully functional CCE. The
following describes one-stop service for each of these office scenarios
assuming that the CCE technology infrastructure is in place.
All three agencies present
This would represent the optimum level of service. Each agency
representative would be able to describe, in general, the program
services available from the other two agencies, provide written
material and introduce the customer to other agency counterparts if the
customer was interested in other services. They would also be able to
check the status of a pending item, such as a loan application, and
provide that information to the customers. If needed, they could set up
appointments with the counterparts or take information, such as a new
telephone number, and put that information into a shared database.
One or two agencies present
Same type of service described above except that for services for
an agency not on site, the Service Center employees will depend upon
technology to bridge from providing general information, such as
application forms, to personal service on a particular program. For
example, if the customer is interested in a service offered by Rural
Development--RD, but there is no RD employee on site, an NRCS employee
can provide general information and assistance. But, since their
expertise is conservation and not lending, they would not be able to
pre-qualify or process a loan application. With the CCE technology in
place, however, they would be able to assist the customer in connecting
to the nearest RD office through a user friendly KIOSK or computer
terminal. Through an automated question/answer process, the customer
could pre-qualify for a loan, submit a loan application, and schedule
an appointment with the RD loan officer either at his or her base
Service Center or at the NRCS only office. Another option would be to
go on line directly using the KIOSK or computer terminal and a two-way
video connection to discuss the loan application and needs with a
remote RD loan officer.
In the above instance, the full one-stop service would be provided
via the technological connection with some assistance from the NRCS
employee to help the customer get started and be comfortable with the
process.
In addition to the above examples, the one-stop concept also
encompasses situations where a farmer may have parts of his or her
farming operation in several counties or even crossing state lines.
Currently, that individual has to visit each Service Center that
services his or her dispersed operation. With CCE technology in place
and the Geographic Information Systems that are a key part of that
technology, the producer will be able to stop in only one of the
Service Centers and sign up for programs or conduct other business
covering the entire operation.
The CCE is the essential linchpin for achieving the one-stop vision
outlined above. This common information system will allow information
to be shared both within a Service Center and between Service Centers.
The current stove pipe and out-of-date technology supporting the
Service Center operations today do not allow for this mobility of data
and customer service. This infrastructure barrier must be removed in
order to provide the ``anytime, anywhere'' one-stop shopping service
that is needed. Without the open state-of the art enabling technology
provided by the CCE, one-stop service cannot be achieved.
With respect to major milestones, the CCE will be fully implemented
at the end of fiscal year 2002, provided that adequate funding is
provided for the capital investments necessary to acquire the key
components at the specified times to meet that schedule. The
implementation strategy identifies the key components of the CCE
infrastructure and lays out their execution in a staged approach,
providing immediate benefits and building capability to support
reengineered business processes as they are implemented. These critical
milestones for the implementation of the CCE are described in the
following project plan Implementation Schedule for CCE components:
[The information follows:]
Question. Because most business planning for the common computing
environment was completed prior to advent of Internet growth, (1) to
what extent and specifically how does the Department intend to use the
Internet to compliment current service delivery, and (2) what changes
if any will integrating the Internet into service delivery have on CCE
IT acquisition and maintenance costs in fiscal years 2000, 2001, and
2002.
Answer. Today, via the Internet, farmers and agricultural producers
can electronically view public information on USDA programs, such as
crop and production reports. They can download and fill-in application
forms for temporary programs such as the Small Hog Operation Program,
the Dairy Market Loss Assistance Program, Crop Loss Disaster Assistance
Program, the Livestock Assistance Program, and several forms for FSA's
farm loan programs. USDA is making additional forms available in
electronic form, including applications for loan deficiency payments.
However, these forms must still be faxed or mailed back to the
Department for processing. This kind of electronic access is a good
first step, as it saves having to visit a Service Center to obtain a
form, and requires a minimal infrastructure investment (a web server
accessible from the Internet). USDA is also currently providing a large
variety of program information on its Web sites, including news
releases, program fact sheets, program activity information, and office
locators.
As part of our Electronic Access Initiative--EAI--within the SCMI,
the next level of electronic access planned is to enable farmers to
complete and submit USDA forms over the Internet. Current paper forms
often assume the customer is sitting with and being assisted by a
Service Center employee. Many of the forms being converted to
electronic format for access over the Internet must be enhanced with
easy to understand instructions and when fully interactive prompt
customers in a way that prevents submission without the customer having
provided all the required information. The current technology
infrastructure does not adequately support access to the Internet for
USDA staff or full access via the Internet for customers. Achieving
this level of access requires a fully implemented CCE under the SCMI of
the county-based agencies. The EAI is developing electronic
authentication (electronic signature) methods to verify the identity of
the sender and the integrity of the content of the electronic document.
Achieving the vision of electronic access to USDA programs offered
through Service Centers so America's farmers and other rural residents
can conduct their business with the Department online is an enormous
undertaking. Additionally, submission of a document to the Department
electronically does not mean that processing of the document is
automated. Electronic access will require reengineering numerous
existing programs and systems, as well as training employees in new
roles, responsibilities, and technologies. From a technical
perspective, Web-enabling USDA's business means investing in hardware,
software, and telecommunications to securely connect the existing
county-based USDA Service Centers to the Department's national network
and the Internet. The level and timing of these investments play an
important role in determining which electronic services the Department
can provide to farmers and when it can provide them. CCE IT acquisition
and maintenance estimated costs for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002
include support for these Internet based processes.
USDA recently contracted for a major study to address the security
issues associated with this initiative. The Department plans to use $1
million of the fiscal year 2000 CCE appropriation to provide the
initial web servers and security tools needed to start the process.
Additional investments required for full electronic access are planned
for fiscal year 2001 and 2002, as outlined in the CCE Implementation
Plan.
In April 1999, the Service Center Agencies began working on the EAI
with the objective of establishing an infrastructure that enables them
to make the web a mainstream way of doing business. Although the
primary purpose of the project is to build the IT infrastructure
necessary to support e-business, the program owners in the agencies are
actively participating in pilots, process reengineering, staff
assignments and other innovative activities.
One of the major requirements for USDA to move forward with
technology acquisitions was for it to have reengineered business
processes for the service centers.
Question. Has USDA completed reengineering business processes for
the service centers?
Answer. Business Process Reengineering--BPR--is at the heart of the
Service Center Modernization Initiative--SCMI. BPR analyzes the service
center agencies' current program and administrative processes to see
how they can be streamlined and integrated to improve the effectiveness
and efficiency of USDA's service to customers. Our BPR efforts to date
have given us the understanding of our basic business processed needed
to move forward with the CCE and have served as the basis for defining
the CCE technology architecture. We recognize that the CCE will need to
support business as we know it today, as well as any changes in
business over the next decade. That is why our CCE architecture is
designed around open, interoperable and scalable systems. We look at
the CCE as the basic technology infrastructure to support county-based
program delivery through the first decade of the 21st century. Failure
to move forward will hamper our ability to service our customers and
respond to the needs of the future.
Question. If not, what is left to reengineer and when will this be
completed?
Answer. There are 20 active BPR projects focusing on core business
areas such as lending, managing risk, conservation and environment,
community development and outreach, and administration. Each of these
projects is tested in a laboratory environment before being piloted in
the field and deployed nationally.
SCMI has initiated the reengineering design of approximately 60
percent of the Service Center business processes and will reengineer
the remaining 40 percent of the buisness processes as resources permit.
The BPR project designed to strealine human resources administration
has completed all testing and piloting and is being deployed
nationally. BPR projects involving lending, community development,
managing risk, conservation, and administrative areas are scheduled to
complete testing and piloting in fiscal year 2000 and be deployed
nationally in fiscal year 2001.
Question. What are the estimated savings that USDA will achieve
from processes already reengineered?
Answer. CEE is also designed as a fully scalable infrastructure
that can quickly respond to and support future business needs as
dictated by new legislative or policy changes.
The SCI Business Case developed in fiscal year 1998 provides an
economic analysis and cost benefits for the implementation of the CCE
and reengineered business processes. It shows a return on investment of
40 percent over the full 10-year life span of the project. The
calculated dollar value of benefits from staff time savings and
improved efficiencies of operations total $5.486 billion over this
period. This analysis has been validated by actual measurement of
increased process efficiencies at two of the field pilot sites. In
fact, staff reductions have already been made (over 10,000 from fiscal
year 1993) and the technology tools and streamlined processes will be
the only way this reduced staff can continue to deliver quantity
service and meet the demands of cyclical workload such as that
associated with natural and economic disasters.
Question. USDA's budget for fiscal year 2001 shows that the
department plans to spend $86 million for equipment for the CCE/Service
Center Modernization. What will this investment acquire?
Answer. The following table shows the planned investment for CCE
components in fiscal year 2001.
[The information follows:]
Estimated
CCE Fiscal Year 2001 Investments Costs
Network/Communications Servers.......................... $32,240,000
Application Servers (includes GIS and public access
servers)............................................ 15,000,000
Workstation/Server Software............................. 7,000,000
Enterprise GIS Software................................. 5,000,000
Relational Database..................................... 2,640,000
Peripheral Equipment (includes digital cameras and
portable data accessories).......................... 8,095,000
Printers................................................ 6,150,000
Workstations............................................ 10,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 86,125,000
Question. With the Internet, many companies can now deliver
services to anywhere by having computer equipment at a central
location. How is USDA's planned investment of $86 million going to move
the Department to this capability and new business model that other
companies are moving to?
Answer. At this point we are very limited in our ability to do
business with our producers electronically. Currently they can get on
our Web pages and download information and application forms, but
cannot submit them to us electronically. They are able to fill out the
forms and then bring them to us or mail or fax them to our office.
Moving forward to provide full electronic access to our programs
and services is one of our top priorities. Our primary obstacles are
that (1) many of our forms need to be redesigned to a user friendly
format with clear instructions so that our customers can use them and
(2) our current technology infrastructure is outdated and cannot
support full electronic access. We now have an Electronic Access
Initiative underway that will provide for staged roll-outs of
infrastructure improvements, security and privacy protocol to support
this effort. Also, agencies are working to redesign forms and
instructions so that some interim improvements in this area can be
made. We plan to use part of the $12.6 million appropriated by the
Congress in fiscal year 2000 for CCE to acquire the infrastructure
needed to support electronic access. We also expect to pilot several
electronic access applications by mid 2001 and to provide full
electronic access when the basic CCE infrastructure is installed at the
county office level by the end of fiscal year 2002.
Question. USDA's budget for the CCE shows $44.5 million was spent
in fiscal year 2000 for other services and that another $50 million
will be spent in fiscal year 2001 for other Services. What do these
other services comprise?
Answer.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Activity -----------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Management.............................................. 1,770 600 600
BPR............................................................. 8,192 12,314 18,850
LAN/WAN/Voice................................................... 10,432 3,500 ..............
Base Data Acquisition........................................... 15,050 23,550 23,550
Common Computing Environment (CCE).............................. 1,707 4,500 7,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total Other Services...................................... 37,151 44,464 50,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The program management funding represents support contracts for the
change management training, improvement of customer service, and
overall program management. The BPR amount represents support contracts
for the development and pilot testing of reengineered processes. The
LAN/WAN/Voice represents the contractor costs for installation and
maintenance of equipment in LAN/WAN/Voice sites. The base data
acquisition constitutes the digitizing of all soil, common land unit,
and other data; and the purchase of ortho-imagery data from the
Geological Survey Service. Finally, the CCE amount is for architecture,
systems, and data integration studies.
USDA is requesting $75 million under a special account for the CCE/
Service Center Modernization. The budget indicates that fund requested
under this account would provide the essential capital investments that
are needed to achieve the goal of a fully operational CCE in 2002.
Question. Does this mean that USDA will only need the additional
$75 million to complete the CCE implementation? What assurance can USDA
give us that if the $75 million is funded, that USDA will not come back
to request additional funds in fiscal year 2002 and thereafter?
Question. Once USDA does fully implement the CCE, what does the
Department estimate its annual costs will be to maintain, update,
provide, provide communications, and manage the CCE?
Answer. The estimated CCE total cost for fiscal year 2001 is $91.2
million. The additional $16.2 million would come from the Service
Center agencies' budgets. An additional $91.2 million would be needed
in fiscal year 2002 to complete CCE implementation. After the fiscal
year 2002 investment, the CCE installation would be largely complete.
The maintenance and operations costs would be included in the Service
Center agencies' budgets.
When fully implemented, annual estimated costs for CCE vary between
$146 million to $178 million, depending upon whether or not a major
technology upgrade to CCE components is anticipated during that year.
These costs are for the acquisition, maintenance, operation,
telecommunications, and other related costs to support the CCE after
its initial implementation. These include staff salaries and
administrative costs that would also be incurred for the maintenance of
the CCE. These are not, however, new costs that would need to be borne
by the department, but a re-direction (with a significant reduction) of
current spending to support and operate the legacy systems of the three
Sevice Center agencies.
SERVICE CENTER IMPLEMENTATION OVERSIGHT
USDA's OCIO fiscal year 2001 budget narrative says that for service
center implementation oversight the department, among other things,
conducts independent verification and validations (IV&V's).
Question. How much does OCIO plan to spend on IV&Vs in fiscal year
2001 for the service center implementation, and what specific areas
will the IV&Vs be focused?
Answer. OCIO has projected a need to spend about $100,000 in fiscal
year 2001 on IV&Vs related to Service Center implementation. IV&Vs are
generally done on a specific technical or management issues that need
outside, objective review and will be determined based on the progress
of the overall project.
Question. How many IV&Vs were completed in fiscal year 1999, and
will be completed in fiscal year 2000, for the service center
implementation?
Answer. Two IV&Vs were completed in fiscal year 1999 and three are
estimated to be completed in fiscal year 2000.
Question. For those IV&Vs completed for the service center
implementation, how many recommendations were made and how many of
these recommendations have been implemented to date? Please discuss
each recommendation and the actions taken by the Department to address
each one.
Answer. The two 1999 IV&Vs involved (1) a task to observe and
evaluate work being done by FSA and the Service Center Implementation
Team (SCIT) on a technical solution to connect FSA legacy systems to
the network and (2) a task to review the process by which the SCIT
identified and selected an Enterprise Geographic Information System--
GIS--software. The recommendations and follow-up actions for each of
these IV&Vs follow:
FSA system 36 legacy system IV&V
The IV&V evaluation made seven key recommendations. The
recommendation and status of each follows:
Recommendation.--Drop the IDEA gateway from the completion for
architectural reasons because it is an interim solution that does not
offer any long term migration path or hardware recovery.
USDA Action/Status.--The IDEA gateway was dropped from
consideration.
Recommendation.--Prior to final selection, perform a load test in
the lab and field-test a performance-based pilot to verify that the
performance of the Microsoft SNA Server solution is adequate to support
the largest service center on busy days.
USDA Action/Status.--The additional testing was completed.
Recommendation.--If the performance tests indicate that the
Microsoft SNA Server cannot support the required performance metrics of
the Service Center, then select the A/36 upgrade.
USDA Action/Status.--The conclusion from this testing was that the
Microsoft SNA solution performance metrics were not satisfactory. The
FSA has selected and proposed the AS400 upgrade for the connectivity
solution.
Recommendation.--If the Microsoft SNA Server passes the performance
test, then select it for the A/36 connectivity solution. By selecting
the Microsoft SNA Server as the solution, USDA will gain other uses for
the server. In order to take advantage of COTS applications and
associated plans for future business requirements, the Service Centers
will require a file server. The Microsoft SNA solution, while providing
connectivity to the A/36 and associated legacy equipment, can be
utilized to perform everyday LAN/WAN related support (file and print
sharing, electronic mail, etc.). Further, since the IBM Mainframes in
NITC are IP-enabled, once applications and data are either transferred
or rewritten for use on another platform (Operating System and DBMS),
the SNA connection (Dial Up XOT modem line) can be dropped.
USDA Action/Status.--Because of the performance testing results,
the Microsoft SNA solution was not selected.
Recommendation.--Obtain a best and final cost from the selected
vendor.
USDA Action/Status.--We will obtain a best and final cost as part
of the procurement process that will occur after a solution is decided
upon.
Recommendation.--In order to expedite deployment of the Microsoft
SNA Server solution, should it be selected, consider reconfiguring
2,600 of the 16,000 existing workstations already purchased or part of
the 6,000 workstations to be purchased for use as the NT Server to host
the SNA server. This will reduce start-up and deployment time. More
robust NT Servers can later be procured to replace these converted
workstations when their usage increases and funding allowed.
USDA Action/Status.--As noted above, this solution was not selected
and this recommendation has not been implemented.
Recommendation.--Investigate the use of A/36 migration or porting
software companies to help rehost FSA applications from the A/36 to the
new target platform. This will help USDA save on the A/36 maintenance
costs and potentially also save on the field software deployment costs.
Furthermore, it could help ease the complexity of migration since FSA
will only have to be concerned with one hardware platform.
USDA Action/Status.--Some work in this regard was done by FSA, but
an OCIO sponsored evaluation is currently underway to respond to this
issue. This evaluation of connectivity alternatives sponsored by OCIO
will be completed in May with a decision by the CIO expected by June 1,
2000.
Evaluation of SCIT enterprise GIS software selection process
The IV&V study made six key recommendations. The recommendations
and status of each follows:
Recommendation.--Due to the pace and structure of the overall
Service Center Program, there are a number of system architecture
issues that cannot be thoroughly investigated prior to GIS solution
selection and therefore pose a significant risk. These issues include
performance, maintenance, administration, and incomplete business case
development. The USDA should undertake a study to understand the nature
and potential magnitude of the risks posed by the current level of
uncertainty and to develop migration plans to address these risks prior
to deployment.
USDA Action/Status.--The USDA GIS Team evaluated the IV&V
recommendations and developed a risk mitigation strategy which was
incorporated into their final recommendation document.
Recommendation.--The USDA should perform both stress testing and
performance testing before making the final selection of GIS products.
This includes defining realistic environments (infrastructure and
loads) and testing perspective vendor products in these environments.
The results of performance testing should be used to assess
implications on hardware suite acquisition and maintenance costs to
achieve desired response times.
USDA Action/Status.--The USDA GIS Team developed a series of
discrete event simulation performance models to test candidate GIS
architectures. These models were used to test the top software
candidates. Additional models will be developed in the future to test
other components.
Recommendation.--The USDA should define system support requirements
including software and hardware maintenance requirements, and data
distribution and administration requirements. Assess vendor products
implications on support costs to adequately install and maintain the
system.
USDA Action/Status.--The USDA Team incorporated consideration of
support requirements and availability as part of their analysis and
final recommendation for a GIS product.
Recommendation.--Identify key GIS interfaces with other CCE
components and assure that there are no incompatibilities. Ensure that,
if there are requirements not derivable from the business case, they
can be justified by some other means--reasonable performance,
interfaces with existing/future products, product, and data support.
Consider adding these requirements to the business case.
USDA Action/Status.--The USDA GIS Team documented the interfaces
and compatibility issues and developed an ``Enterprise GIS Business
Requirements'' document that specifically addressed the business case
issue pointed out in the IV&V.
Recommendation.--The USDA should provide clear rationale for
prioritizing the numerous functional capabilities demonstrated through
the LTD. This prioritization should reflect a clear concept of how
these capabilities will be transitioned to the field to achieve
projected benefits.
USDA Action/Status.--The USDA GIS Team provided documentation
regarding the rationale and prioritization in the final recommendation
document and the business requirements analysis.
Recommendation.--The scope of the Draft CCE GIS Results Report
produced by the AMS subcontractor should be modified to just present
the results of the LTD. A separate report produced by the USDA GIS Team
should develop recommendations as to how the USDA should proceed,
taking into account the USDA prioritized functions.
USDA Action/Status.--The USDA GIS Team chose not to limit the
contractor to a presentation of the test results, but allowed the
vendor to include a recommendation based on those results. The
recommendation was non-binding on the government, but provided a third
party, objective perspective. The team did prepare its' own report and
recommendations as suggested by the IV&V.
CONSOLIDATING/OUTSOURCING USDA HEADQUARTERS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
FUNCTIONS
Question. What analyses has USDA completed to determine where there
would be opportunities to consolidate internal IT activities across
agencies throughout the department?
Answer. The Department is increasingly exploring opportunities
where the USDA agencies might benefit from consolidated IT activities.
An interagency team is currently working on several issues in the area
of asset management. For example, the team is currently analyzing the
potential benefits of USDA standardizing on one tool set for querying
large data sets, a need which has been identified by several agencies.
In November 1999, the Secretary directed the Chief Financial
officer, working with the Chief Information Officer and the Assistant
Secretary for Administration, to lead a group of senior executives in
developing a corporate strategy for administrative/financial systems
that affect the entire Department. The group will look at a range of
systems, including accounting/budget execution and formulation
functions, procurement, property, human resources, travel, and the
associated telecommunications and security.
The Department is working to establish a corporate or enterprise
telecommunications network to support interoperability for interagency
communications and data exchange among agencies and programs and
enhance program delivery and eliminate redundant services, facilities,
resources, and operations. An enterprise network is also an integral
component of our efforts to strengthen cyber-security. With mergers
occurring throughout the telecommunications industry, often resulting
in reduced unit costs for telecommunications services, an enterprise
network will enable USDA to leverage the apparent successes documented
by our industry partners and take advantage of these reductions. The
aggregation of telecommunications services and equipment from a
corporate perspective can also significantly reduce the unit costs that
are incurred by individual agencies by allowing the Department to take
advantage of the economies-of-scale that exist. The bottom line is
improved USDA program delivery.
Another area where we are making progress with consolidating IT
activities across agencies is at our National Information Technology
Center (NITC), located in Kansas City and Ft. Collins. NITC already
consolidates and centralizes some of the client server platforms across
agencies; with several agencies running applications on NITC servers
and reaping the benefits of a shared environment. FSA and RD have also
consolidated some data warehouse operations on a single server procured
by NITC. In addition, the data warehouse for our Foundation Financial
Information System (FFIS), serving multiple USDA customers, is hosted
on its own mainframe at NITC.
This centralized approach to hosting agency IT applications at NITC
benefits USDA agencies by offering: a 24 hour/day, 7 days/week, 365/366
days a year operating environment; an Uninterruptible Power Supply
(UPS), including a dual power feed UPS, and diesel generators; a secure
infrastructure (including physical access to facility, security
clearances, biometric entry controls, cameras, dry sprinklers, and
halon fire suppressants); system administration/management (including
Commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software support, storage management,
operating system management, change and problem management, capacity
and performance management, and help desk facility; disaster
recovery(including backup recovery, off-site storage, and hotsite
recovery program); and centralized hardware maintenance. Most
importantly, it allows costs to be spread across all clients, while
freeing up agency FTE to work on applications.
The Service Center Modernization Initiative's Support Services
Bureau is designed to consolidate internal IT activities across our
county based agencies. In our view, the only way to successfully
maintain and operate the shared CCE that we plan to put in place is by
consolidating the three separate IT organizations of the Service Center
agencies into one integrated staff. Otherwise, it is just a matter of
time before the stovepipes begin to form and we no longer have a
``common'' environment. That is why the Secretary is asking Congress to
remove the restrictive fiscal year 2000 appropriations language that
prevents us from moving forward with the Support Service Bureau.
Question. What analyses has USDA completed to determine whether
outsourcing for some of its IT functions would be cost-effective?
Answer. In accordance with the Federal Activities Inventory Reform
(FAIR) Act, the Department has developed a list of all functions that
are not considered ``inherently governmental'' and thus could
potentially be outsourced. However, we have not yet conducted any
systematic analysis to determine whether or not outsourcing for
specific IT functions would be cost-effective. I do plan to look at
outsourcing in the area of software services--that is, determining
where it might be cost effective for the Department to use application
services providers (ASPs) to lease software, rather than buy and
maintain it using our in-house technical staff.
SECURITY
Question. USDA's CIO budget includes an increase of $6.6M for
expanding its USDA Cyber Security Program and identifies numerous
activities related to security that it will be undertaking.
Answer. The $6.6 million includes funding for the following
activities:
--$1,392,000 for salaries, benefits, travel, and contract support for
the Cyber Security Program Office;
--$1,280,000 to conduct risk assessments;
--$2,325,000 for contract support to create a USDA Information and
Telecommunications Security Architecture, which will provide
the corporate products and services necessary to securely use
USDA's information assets (commensurate with the sensitivity
and value of those assets);
--$1,200,000 for contract support to design and implement a USDA
Information Security Awareness and Training Program; and
--$437,000 to develop a USDA Software Import Control and Licensing
Program;
Question. What are the current general areas of security weaknesses
at USDA that this program will address?
Answer. The general areas of security weaknesses to be addressed by
the cyber security Office are: Risk Management--vulnerability
assessments, risk mitigation programs, monitoring of safeguards,
building of risk management models, Telecommunications weakness,
Internet access--firewall, intrusion detection, reporting--Logical
access in tiers I Mainframe, II Minicomputers and servers, and III
Workstations, configuration management, Operations, Critical
Infrastructure, Disaster recovery, Security Awareness, Personnel
security, insufficient and ineffective tools, Skills and Security and
System Administration training.
Question. What are the milestones and time frames and estimated
total costs to fully address these weaknesses?
Answer. The Department's Associate Chief Information Officer for
Cyber Security began work in February, 2000. His early estimates are
that, if funding is available, it will take at a minimum 3 years and
could be dependent upon the magnitude of spending to adequately
mitigate these weaknesses and to have the processes to adequately
manage the risks. Specific milestones and time lines will be developed
based upon the funding that is made available.
Question. How much will be spent in fiscal year 2001 across USDA on
information security management for staff, software and other related
expenses? (Please break out the number of information security
management staff in and total security dollars spent at each agency and
office.)
Answer. The following two tables provide that information. USDA
does not collect data on security in the aforementioned categories.
However, based on the most recent data, security expenditures are
estimated to be devoted to the following categories: Personnel--64
percent, System Protection--10 percent, Threat and Risk Assessment--7
percent, Intrusion Monitoring and Response--7 percent, and Education
and training--5 percent.
[The information follows:]
TABLE 1. USDA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SECURITY BUDGET (BASED ON INFORMATION COLLECTED IN JULY 1999)
[Dollars in thousands]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Security Budget (fiscal years) Total IT Budget (fiscal years) Percent for Security
Agency --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMS \1\.................................. .......... .......... .......... $17,505 $15,978 $17,363 .......... .......... ..........
APHIS.................................... $367 $624 $624 37,645 31,060 38,324 0.97 2.01 1.63
ARS...................................... 151 348 965 38,991 37,097 39,765 0.39 0.94 2.43
CR \1\................................... .......... .......... .......... 2,355 1,943 2,277 .......... .......... ..........
CSREES................................... 778 738 4,732 7,308 8,527 ........... 10.65 8.65
ERS...................................... 190 172 179 5,031 5,725 6,027 3.78 3.00 2.97
DA \1\................................... 88 160 185 3,014 10,408 8,080 2.92 1.54 2.29
FAS \3\.................................. .......... .......... .......... 10,103 11,538 14,002 .......... .......... ..........
FNS...................................... 662 819 781 350,529 351,731 389,294 0.19 0.22 0.20
FS....................................... 505 972 911 304,705 306,644 297,481 0.17 0.32 0.31
FSA...................................... 300 471 313 161,355 162,121 166,912 0.19 0.29 0.19
FSIS..................................... 192 252 500 28,456 26,748 46,531 0.67 0.94 1.07
GIPSA \1\................................ .......... .......... .......... 3,705 3,893 4,089 .......... .......... ..........
NAD \1\.................................. .......... .......... .......... 761 570 589 .......... .......... ..........
NASS..................................... 500 528 3,144 16,533 16,272 17,514 3.02 3.24 17.95
NRCS..................................... 903 758 820 96,021 66,447 67,255 0.94 1.14 1.22
OBPA \1\................................. .......... .......... .......... 689 559 559 .......... .......... ..........
OC \1\................................... .......... .......... .......... 513 525 972 .......... .......... ..........
OCE...................................... 9 9 9 767 760 750 1.17 1.18 1.20
OCFO \2\................................. 2,266 2,527 2,905 162,454 183,997 191,321 1.39 1.37 1.52
(162,454) (183,997) (191,321)
OCIO \2\................................. 3,723 3,327 5,316 72,941 71,073 81,513 5.10 4.68 6.52
(59,872) (60,988) (63,799)
OGC...................................... 4 5 5 1,490 1,591 2,441 0.27 0.31 0.20
OIG \1\.................................. .......... .......... .......... 5,272 5,743 3,241 .......... .......... ..........
RD....................................... 510 720 1,860 79,970 98,345 127,462 0.64 0.73 1.46
RMA \3\.................................. .......... .......... .......... 28,076 27,329 29,338 .......... .......... ..........
SCIT \1\................................. .......... .......... .......... 35,193 85,796 237,994 .......... .......... ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................. 10,370 12,470 19,255 1,246,480 1,286,216 1,544,501 0.83 0.97 1.25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No security budget estimates provided.
\2\ Numbers reflect total Appropriated and Working Capital Funding. Percentages computed for security are approximations. Not adjusted for collections
in fiscal year 1999: $5,737,438; fiscal year 2000: $5,595,787; fiscal year 2001: $6,507,860.
\3\ These agencies submitted combined security budgets.
TABLE 2. USDA IT SECURITY STAFFING--FISCAL YEAR 1999
(Percent of time Spent on IT security)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collateral Duty (Percent)
Agency FTEs --------------------------------- Contractor
0-10 26-49 50-99 Support
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FFAS................................................... 13 ......... ......... ......... ...........
FSA.................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
FAS.................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
RMA.................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
FNCS................................................... 2 11 ......... ......... ...........
FNS.................................................... 2 11 ......... ......... ...........
CNPP FOOD SAFETY....................................... 1 4 ......... ......... ...........
FSIS................................................... 1 4 ......... ......... ...........
M&RP................................................... 3 19 3 2 2
AMS.................................................... 1 15 3 2 2
APHIS.................................................. 1 1 ......... ......... ...........
GIPSA.................................................. 1 3 ......... ......... ...........
NR&E................................................... 4 136 2 5 .5
FS..................................................... 2 135 2 3 ...........
NRCS................................................... 2 1 ......... 2 0.5
RE&E................................................... 4 2 2 1 ...........
ARS.................................................... 1 ......... ......... 1 ...........
CSREES................................................. 1 ......... 1 ......... ...........
ERS.................................................... 1 2 ......... ......... ...........
NASS................................................... 1 ......... 1 ......... ...........
RD..................................................... 5 ......... ......... ......... 2
RBCS................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
RCD.................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
RHS.................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
RUS.................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........
STAFF OFFICES.......................................... 39 7 6 1 2
OCFO................................................... 28 1 ......... ......... ...........
OCIO................................................... 11 3 6 1 2
All Other Offices...................................... ......... 3 ......... ......... ...........
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 71 179 13 9 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Forest Service was only agency to report field staff, who spend
0-10 percent of their time on security related administrative tasks.
FTEs provide both operational and policy support.
Question. What performance measures has USDA established to measure
the effectiveness, progress, and benefit of all the information
security management activities? And where and how are they being
tracked within USDA?
Answer. The Department has recently established metrics to measure
the effectiveness and progress for information security management
activities in new systems under development--for example adherence to
the five core information security requirements in the Department's
Security Architecture--and is working on establishing the metrics for
all information security management activities. The Office of the
Associate Chief Information Officer for Cyber Security will track
security management activities. They will be tracked through activity
reports and on-site visits.
Question. How much does USDA plan to spend in fiscal year 2001 to
further implement its FFIS and related improvements?
Answer. The implementation budget for fiscal year 2001 is $25.2
million.
Question. How much will have been spent through fiscal year 2000 to
implement FFIS?
Answer. To ensure a better understanding of the FFIS project budget
and costs, in fiscal year 1999, the new project management team was
asked to develop a budget that segregated implementation costs from the
ongoing operational costs of implemented USDA agencies. Through fiscal
year 1998, $57.4 million had been spent for development and
implementation activities. This amount includes USDA personnel costs
and contractor costs in support of the overall project and individual
agency implementation efforts. It does not include any internal agency
costs for business process re-engineering or similar activities. In
fiscal year 1999, implementation costs were $16.9 million. For fiscal
year 2000, one of the two most intensive years for implementation of
USDA agencies, the implementation budget is $25.5 million. The total
amount spent through fiscal year 2000 will be approximately $100
million.
Question. What are the milestones for completing the implementation
of FFIS, and what will be the final costs?
Answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FFIS Production
Fiscal Year Operation Date Agency Name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998............................ October 1, 1997... Office of the
Chief Financial
Officer, Forest
Service
(approximately 1/
3 of Forest
Service)
1999............................ October 1, 1998... Risk Management
Agency
2000............................ October 1, 1999... Remaining 2/3 of
Forest Service
and Food Safety
and Inspection
Service
2001............................ October 1, 2000... Animal and Plant
Health Inspection
Service, Farm
Service Agency,
Natural Resources
Conservation
Service, and
Rural Development
2002............................ October 1, 2001... Agricultural
Marketing
Service,
Departmental
Administration/
Staff Food and
Nutrition
Service, and
Research,
Education and
Economics Mission
area
2003............................ October 1, 2002... Foreign
Agricultural
Service, Grain
Inspection,
Packers and
Stockyards
Administration,
and Six Non-USDA
Cross-Serviced
Agencies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How many agencies are currently using FFIS to input their
financial information, and when does the Department expect all
agencies/offices to be using FFIS?
Answer. The Forest Service, Food Safety and Inspection Service, the
Risk Management Agency, and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer,
about 44 percent of the USDA workforce, all rely on FFIS for their
administrative accounting services. By October 1, 2000, four additional
agencies, Rural Development, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, the Farm Service Agency, and the Natural Resource Conservation
Service will utilize FFIS for these same services. The following table
shows the number of USDA employees served by fiscal year.
[The information follows:]
USDA FFIS IMPLEMENTATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of USDA Percentage of
Fiscal Year Total USDA Employees Total USDA
Employment \1\ Served Workforce
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999............................................................ 104,661 528 .005
2000............................................................ 101,772 44,544 43.76
2001 \2\........................................................ 104,220 75,257 72.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on fiscal year 1999 Actual Staff Years.
\2\ Projected fiscal year 2001 Implementation.
Question. To its credit, USDA recently made a successful transition
into the year 2000. In preparing for Y2K, the Department spent more
than $50 million to get its information systems ready. What were the
positive lessons learned and how are they being applied today at USDA?
Aside from making the actual transition itself, to what extent has the
Department been able to capitalize on its Year 2000 investment and make
added improvements in the Department-wide use of information
technology?
Answer. The Y2K experience enhanced the capability of USDA managers
to use proven project management techniques to ensure completion of
complex tasks on time and within cost:
--Process owners and business resumption team leaders have an
increased understanding of and skills in strategic planning and risk
management, such as the use of assessment tools, mitigation and
contingency planning, and management tracking, as well as greater
appreciation for the value of exercises to test their plans and train
critical staff members.
--The Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) developed
capabilities and processes to centrally coordinate a set of major IT
initiatives to leverage investments and promote Department-wide
efficiencies that will be applicable to future IT investments and
system rollouts, especially as investments are considered as part of
the Department's Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC)
process.
This successful experience is the impetus for initial plans to
establish an enterprise program management unit within OCIO. The
purpose will be to plan, manage and evaluate proposed major IT
investments to identify and take advantage of economies of scale,
coordinate with the enterprise architecture development to establish
consistency in IT investments, manage risk from a corporate
perspective, and to track actual return on investment.
Question. For the record, what was the total dollar amount spent by
the Department on Year 2000 fixes and what does this include?
Answer. Total overall Y2K spending obligations, including agency
appropriations, is reflected in the following chart.
Fiscal Year Cost in Millions
1996.............................................................. $1.4
1997.............................................................. 14.1
1998.............................................................. 64.1
1999.............................................................. 95.4
Est. 2000......................................................... 13.5
______
Total....................................................... 188.5
These funds were spent for: hardware upgrades and replacements;
embedded chip and scientific equipment remediation; Independent
Validation and Verification; telecommunications systems remediation;
remediation of other systems; software upgrades and replacements;
business continuity and contingency planning; program management;
technical assistance to states; and outreach.
OTHER AREAS
USDA INFORMATION TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Question. A primary goal for USDA's CIO has been the development of
a Department-wide information and technical infrastructure to improve
service delivery through more effective information systems and data
management. What efforts are now underway in connection with this
overall goal? Where does the Department stand on carrying out these
initiatives and what are the time frames for their completion?
Answer. USDA began its enterprise architecture initiative in
September 1996. The USDA Information Systems Technology Architecture
was published in February 1997. The architecture was developed as part
of USDA's IT Modernization Plan. Since that time, the architecture has
been used in the development of core business processes for each
mission area for their Y2K business continuity plans, establishment of
the applications baseline for the Y2K initiative, development of the
proposed enterprise telecommunications network, and creation of the
baseline architecture for use by the Service Center Initiative and the
Common Computing Environment. In addition, the architecture processes
have been integrated with the CPIC process to ensure architectural
compliance.
The February 1997 version is now being expanded and updated to
address recommendations of the independent verification and validation,
align USDA's architecture approach and model with the Federal
architecture model, and broaden the architecture to include current
industry best practices. We have also developed a direction for our
future architecture that focuses on an enterprise-centric approach for
shared information and applications. It recognizes the movement toward
electronic government. The future architecture is also being developed
based on the concept of technology domains, which represent common
areas that USDA can approach from an enterprise perspective such as
electronic signature and collaboration tools.
We have also developed a draft ISTA Management Framework which
includes on-going processes that, when finalized, will guide agencies
regarding selecting business processes for improvement projects,
working together to define specific technologies, standards, products
and configurations that will be common across USDA, and standardizing
USDA information systems across USDA, where there are common
requirements
Our fiscal year 2000 Architecture initiatives include: publishing
the USDA ISTA in both paper and electronic forms; continuing outreach
to agencies regarding education and awareness of architecture
principles, standards, and processes; and implementing the ISTA
Management Framework. This includes establishing the groups who will
oversee and operate specific architecture processes.
PRESIDENT'S DECISION DIRECTIVE (PDD) 63
Question. Under the President's 1998 Decision Directive (PDD) 63,
departments and agencies are required to develop infrastructure
protection plans and strategies for achieving them by May 2000. What
efforts are underway in connection with the implementing PDD63 at USDA?
What is the status of the work and when will each effort be completed?
Answer. USDA and its agencies has developed a strategy for
protecting its critical infrastructures. Most Business Resumption and
Disaster recovery plans are in the development stage except for our
major computing facilities--NFC & NITC--which have executable Disaster
Recovery plans. Efforts are underway to define the security risks and
establish risk management processes. Funding of the $6.6 million is
critical in establishment of the risk management process, performing
vulnerability assessments, building a security architecture all of
which are necessary for the successful implementation of PDD63.
IT ACQUISITION MORATORIUM
Question. USDA has had an IT Acquisition Moratorium in place for
several years that requires waivers for IT investments exceeding
$25,000. In fiscal year 1999, many of the waivers granted by USDA
involved acquisitions supporting Y2K-related improvements. What was the
total number and dollar amount of waivers granted for non-Y2K-related
acquisitions during the fiscal year 1999? With the Y2k crisis now over,
does USDA plan to continue its IT moratorium and if so, what will be
the basis for granting waivers?
Answer. The total number and dollar amount of waivers granted for
non-Y2K-related acquisitions during the fiscal year 1999 is 203 waivers
at a total of $281 million.
With the successful Y2K transition behind us, USDA recently
restored the threshold back to the original level of $250,000 for
information technology acquisitions needing Chief Information Officer
approval. The $250,000 threshold was established when the IT
acquisition moratorium originated in November 1996. In July 1997,
Secretary Glickman directed USDA agencies to concentrate as many
resources as possible on correcting the Year 2000 problem so the
moratorium threshold was lowered to $25,000. Since the USDA transition
was successful, the moratorium threshold was raised back to its
original level except for administrative and financial systems. Again,
Secretary Glickman wants USDA to focus on strengthening the corporate
management of the Department's administrative and financial systems;
the Chief Information Officer must approve all money expended on any
administrative and financial systems. As stated in the answer to
question 11, we are also using the moratorium to continue USDA's move
towards a comprehensive capital planning process.
Question. As part of the USDA's effort to develop Business
Continuity and Contingency Plans for Y2K, agencies conducted business
analysis assessments to identify their core business processes and
mission-critical IT systems. How has USDA integrated the results of
these agency assessments into its overall IT planning?
Answer. As a direct consequence of its investment in Y2K
preparations, USDA has many new or improved capabilities. The main
collateral benefits of Y2K preparation include enhanced IT systems
management capabilities and an improved focus on core business process
support.
Enhanced systems management
Business Continuity and Contingency Planning (BCCP) preparation
included a thorough inventory of current IT assets. Assessment and
preparation of IT systems for remediation necessitated updating IT
architecture diagrams. Older systems, particularly desktop hardware and
applications, have been updated or replaced to ensure Y2K compliance.
The enhanced IT architecture and information will enable improved
capital investment management decisions in the future.
The experience of designing and implementing comprehensive hardware
and software tests has improved USDA's capability to test new
applications and components and will reduce the time and cost to deploy
new applications.
Improved Focus on Core Business Process Support
The tension of preparation for Y2K led to the identification and
prioritization of core business processes and critical IT systems. The
business focus on core processes had the benefit of increasing
management awareness of the critical role of IT in daily business. This
increased management awareness of dependence on IT for day-to-day
business has led to improved coordination between program and IT
personnel. Identification and prioritization of core business processes
also revealed which IT systems are most critical and when, whether on a
daily basis or periodically. Sustaining this awareness will aid in
allocating scarce IT resources and will help continue improving the
Department's Capital Planning and Investment Control process.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENTERPRISE NETWORK
Question. Several years ago, in connection with USDA's work to
develop an integrated overall IT architecture, the Department also
embarked on an effort to establish an enterprise network to better
integrate the Department's many disparate telecommunications systems.
What is the status of that work and what has been accomplished thus
far?
Answer. Our previous attempts to establish a Telecommunications
Enterprise Network--TEN was ultimately put on hold. However, we believe
that a USDA enterprise network is now even more imperative.
Consequently, armed with lessons from previous efforts, we are now in
the process of identifying agency business requirements and redefining
the architecture of a USDA telecommunications enterprise network to
ensure that it meets the Department's and individual USDA agencies'
requirements. Working jointly with the agencies, we are developing a
framework that consists of technology standards, policies, change
control mechanisms, and common processes. Consolidation and
optimization opportunities are also being address using a collaborative
approach. The Department will manage USDA's wide area network and
perimeter security. USDA agencies will continue to administer security,
metropolitan and local area networking and security.
The Department's telecommunications network is analogous to the
nation's highway system, with many local and state roads and highways
feeding into the Interstate system--allowing traffic to flow across the
country. Similarly, our telecommunications backbone consists of a
corporate network with feeder networks managed at the agency level. Our
vision is to develop a modern and efficient corporate network, which is
the backbone of the Department's telecommunications operation.
As you know, the operation of agency-specific stovepipe networks
has historically resulted in reduced inefficiencies to program delivery
and has hampered USDA's interoperability efforts. A corporate or
enterprise network is necessary to support consolidated
telecommunications operations; provide interoperability for interagency
communications and data exchange among agencies and programs; enhance
program delivery and eliminate redundant services, facilities,
resources, and operations. Most importantly, an enterprise network is
also an integral component of our efforts to strengthen cyber security.
The formulation of the enterprise network infrastructure will
provide us with the opportunity to implement a ``centralized
management'' concept which will allow the department to monitor and
measure network performance and result in improved planning and
security functionality.
Question. As part of its enterprise network, USDA also began
reengineering telecommunications management processes throughout the
department to address longstanding problems and achieve savings. What
are the results and what savings have been achieved?
Answer. We are taking steps to improve telecommunications
management and more efficiently utilize our resources even as we work
to transition to an enterprise network. For example, we have made
progress in correcting deficiencies raised in previous GAO audit
reports. To ensure that telecommunications services and leased
telecommunications equipment are terminated upon office closures, a
checklist to be used when closing offices was provided to the agencies.
Steps have also been taken to eliminate redundant, uneconomical or
unused services and equipment. In response to another GAO
recommendation, we have developed a plan to establish a telephone fraud
incident reporting mechanism between the long distance exchange
carriers and USDA's System Network Control Center--SNCC--in Kansas
City, MO. We are also taking advantage of every opportunity during the
current FTS2001 transition to improve our performance in this area.
We are confident that the USDA enterprise network solution makes
good business sense and that the Department will benefit from
significant unit cost reductions, (not necessarily savings), once it is
implemented. Achieving ``savings'' will be difficult given the growing
need for increased bandwidth and other services as more and more
programs and services are made available over the Internet. Still, with
mergers occurring throughout the telecommunications industry, often
resulting in reduced unit costs for telecommunications services, an
enterprise network will enable USDA to leverage the apparent successes
documented by our industry partners and take advantage of these
reductions. The aggregation of telecommunications services and
equipment from a corporate perspective can also significantly reduce
the unit costs that are incurred by individual agencies by allowing the
Department to take advantage of the economies-of-scale that exist. The
bottom line is improved USDA program delivery. Our phased approach to
the implementation of an enterprise network is evolving. We anticipate
that the enterprise network strategic plan will be fully documented
this fiscal year. We will also begin the process of obtaining funding
in fiscal year 2000 and look to complete that effort during fiscal year
2001.
E-GOVERNMENT
Question. USDA's OCIO has requested funding for E-Government
related activities aimed at promoting the use of Internet-based
technologies to make agency programs and services more accessible to
customers. What plans have been developed for executing such
initiatives and what programs do they involve?
Answer. As noted earlier, USDA agencies have several initiatives
already underway. Most encompass providing customers information on
USDA programs and services, as well as market information, over the
Internet. Other applications are being developed which would allow
customers to actually transact business with the Department online.
These include the Electronic Access Initiative in the Farm Services
agencies that will allow farmers to download the forms they need, fill
them out online, and electronically submit them back to the Department.
The funds we have requested will enable the Department to develop a
corporate strategy to implement E-government and are critical for
implementing the recently passed Freedom to E-file legislation. At
present, agencies are planning numerous initiatives without the
necessary level of coordination at the Departmental level. A
Department-wide E-government working group is being established to
address this issue. Our plans include conducting an education and
outreach campaign to ensure that all senior USDA program managers are
aware of and understand the potential impact of E-government and their
role in ensuring that USDA provides the kinds of services that our
customers are increasingly expecting. Most importantly, our plan
includes developing a corporate wide strategy to ensure the necessary
level of coordination and to develop standard approaches to cross-
cutting issues. Once the strategy is in place, agencies can develop and
implement specific plans in an environment which ensures that USDA will
leverage resources across the Department.
INFOSHARE BALANCES
Question. The Committee recommended that unobligated funds made
available to the Office of the Secretary in fiscal year 1996 for
``InfoShare'' be used to fund various activities related to information
technology for which increased funding was requested in the President's
fiscal year 2000 budget. Have ``InfoShare'' funds been proposed to meet
any of these requirements? If so, what investments are proposed from
unobligated ``InfoShare'' funds?
Answer. Because of funding needs to support implementation of the
Service Center Modernization--SCM--and Common Computing Environment--
CCE--all of the funds are being used for that purpose. Where possible,
the Department is leveraging work done in support of SCM activities
such as computer assistance and other work on computer and privacy
issues, for the benefit of all of USDA. For example, in the process of
analyzing requirements and solutions for intrusion detection for the
SCM Electronic Access Project, the Department will utilize that process
and information for the broader USDA environment.
______
SUBMITTED QUESTIONS ON GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. CSREES has developed an annual Performance Plan that links
to that of the Research, Education, and Economics--REE--Mission Area.
The Plan relates program activities to the mission and goals of the
agency--as described in the Agency strategic plan--to the budget
request submitted in support of research, extension and education
activities. More importantly, it reflects the role of CSREES in
enabling land-grant universities and other partners who carry out the
research and extension activities authorized in the CSREES budget, and
frames our ability to use reports and databases to document
accomplishments against expectations.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities? What difficulties, if any,
did you encounter, and what lessons did you learn?
Answer. We use a process of continuous dialogue with our land-grant
partners to identify emerging issues that are of the highest priority
to include in our budget. This takes place in quarterly meetings with
system administrators, while program reviews are conducted by National
Program Leaders, and during annual reviews of research and education
programs. In all instances, these relate to issues of importance
included in the Administrator's budget request. The difficulty we
experienced is one of not being able to describe in sufficient detail
the specific impacts of the Federal investment in research and
education in advance of the completion of research and education
activities by those institutions that receive funding. Using existing
databases and the Research, Education, and Economics Information
System--REEIS--which has not yet been completely developed, and our
past experience with the land-grant system, we feel confident that
projects are focused on issues important to the taxpayers and
producers. This is reflected in the ``Impact'' statements that are
being developed to share the results of research and education with the
public. These impact statements relate to our agency performance goals
and our budget activities.
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget? Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. The agency performance plan is linked to performance
measures that relate to the President's budget. Because of the
complexity of the agency budget and the large number of components in
its accounts, individual components were aggregated around five broad
agency goals for more efficient planning and reporting. Using the five
goals gives a national, issue-based focus to programming planned and
conducted in a dynamic process in the states by eligible partner
institutions. All program and budget activities relate to one or more
of the following CSREES Strategic Goals: (1) An Agricultural Production
System that is Highly Competitive in the Global Economy; (2) A Safe and
Secure Food and Fiber System; (3) A Healthier, More Well-Nourished
Population; (4) Greater Harmony between Agriculture and the
Environment; and (5) Enhanced Economic Opportunities and the Quality of
Life among Families and Communities.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Answer. Again, because of the complexity of the agency budget and
the large number of components in its accounts, activities were
aggregated in the performance plan around the five agency goals for
more efficient planning and reporting. This means that the individual
components in the account and activity structure do not have
performance measures that are specifically linked to those accounts. We
do however believe that we have enough flexibility to effectively link
planning with the budget.
Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. CSREES does not plan to propose any changes to its account
structure for fiscal year 2001.
Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
described under that account structure?
Answer. At this time, CSREES does not plan to propose any changes
to the program activities described under that account structure.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. Performance measures were chosen to reflect critical
actions necessary to achieve shared and national priorities in
agriculture and which describe the purposes and impact of the Federal
investment in research, extension, and education.
Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
Answer. Our agency did not employ additional staff to collect and
verify data, but utilized existing staff and data sources, such as the
Current Research Information System--CRIS--Food and Agricultural
Education Information System--FAEIS--and the Impact Data Base. We
believe that these provide reliable sources of data in identifying
performance measures. The 1998 Farm Bill also developed a Plan of Work
requirement for institutions receiving formula funds in which
institutions must list output and outcome measures that will be
addressed in perspective planning--five years. This will become another
data source when annual Plan of Work reports are submitted in March
2001.
Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. No. The agency plan includes performance measures for which
reliable data will be available for the first performance report.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
2000 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results?
Answer. The key performance goals that we recommend the
subcommittee use to track program results by goals are: Goal 1--Develop
new and value-added products and improved production systems; Goal 2--
Develop and improve detection and prevention methods to reduce
pathogens in foods, and decreased contaminants in the food supply; Goal
3--To improve the health of consumers through changes in diet, quality
of food, and food choices; Goal 4--To understand the compatibility of
agricultural practices on the natural resource base and environment;
and Goal 5--To improve economic and social indicators of community well
being.
Question. For each key annual goal, indicate whether you consider
it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measure (``how
well'').
Answer. CSREES has performance plans for each of our strategic
goals. An example of an output measure under Strategic Goal 1 would be
to develop new and value added products. An outcome measure example
would be improved risk management skills and practices of agricultural
producers, and processors, and marketers.
Question. State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and
objective from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is
linked?
Answer. Our Strategic Plan is linked to five general goals: 1)
Agricultural Production System that is Highly Competitive in the Global
Economy; 2) A Safe and Secure Food and Fiber System; 3) A Healthier,
More Well-Nourished Population; 4) Achieve Greater Harmony between
Agriculture and the Environment; and 5) Enhanced Economic Opportunity
and Quality of Life for Communities; and one agency specific goal--
Responsive and Effective Management Systems. Our annual performance
goals are linked to the objectives and general goals contained in both
the Annual Performance Plan and Strategic Plan. An example of an Annual
Performance Goal is to develop and improve detection and prevention
methods which links to the Objective to improve food safety by
controlling or eliminating food-borne risks, and links to Strategic
Goal 2 to provide a safe and secure food and fiber system.
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. The agency plan reflects substantial internal and external
partnership discussions to identify outcome/output measures which
demonstrate that the goals in the plan have been met, including those
noted in the previous answer.
Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
Answer. Yes, the plan specifies agency and collective program
activities as outputs and university partnership and grantees' work as
the outcomes which address objectives. We support an annual process
that ensures our success in using output and outcome measures. We are
continuing to work with our partners to insure performance measures
contained in our Annual Performance Report are updated and refined.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
external customers.
Answer. Customer satisfaction measures for the agency will include,
but will not be limited to expert assessments--such as would be needed
to assess impacts of genome research and discovery--customer surveys--
such as would be needed to measure scope and effectiveness of selected
extension programs--economic data or social survey data, and physical
monitoring--such as would be valuable to determine effects of research-
based changes in best management practices affecting environmental
quality of public health indicators. Examples of customers would
include Federal agencies--e.g., the Agricultural Research Service, the
Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, the
Environmental Protection Agency, colleges and universities, and
producers and consumers of information related to the food and
agricultural sciences.
Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 2000
Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
Answer. The agency identified approaches to addressing relevant
national issues such as food safety, water quality, waste management,
youth and families at risk, food genome initiative, pest management
strategic, biobased products, and small farms in the formation of the
budget. The measurable goals--and budget necessary to achieve the
goals--contribute to achieving the strategic plan of CSREES.
Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by
this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact
the change would have on the level of program performance and the
achievement of various goals?
Answer. In collaboration with university partners, we will be able
to describe the likely impact on programs and achievement of goals.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results?
Answer. We do not currently have the capacity; however, we are
working to develop the technological capability to measure and report
performance throughout the year. We have completed modernization of
CRIS, are developing REEIS, and are in the final phases of a three-year
project to establish integrated grants tracking and financial
management. With university partners, we have developed a National
Impact Data base and are updating the form and format of state plans
and reports so that they can be submitted and updated through a World
Wide Web-based system.
Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
Answer. The technology capable of measuring and reporting program
performance is accessible to senior and mid-level managers. We have
program analysts who assist in these efforts.
Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
performance-related data located throughout your various information
systems?
Answer. Program related data bases are available for use by program
and mid-level managers.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget. Many agencies have indicated that their
present budget account structure makes it difficult to link dollars to
results in a clear and meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty?
Answer. Because of the complexity of the agency budget and its many
lines, individual programs were aggregated around five general agency
goals for more efficient planning and reporting. While the current
account structure has offered a challenge in the way we respond to the
requirements of GPRA, we feel we have been successful in using the five
goals to give a national focus to programming that is planned and
conducted in a dynamic process in the states by partner institutions
and grantees.
Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
structure were modified?
Answer. Although changes in the budget account structure might
clarify linkage of dollars to results in a meaningful way, that is not
the solution to the challenges CSREES faces in responding to GPRA. This
becomes problematic because the CSREES budget structure is based on
congressional authorities. Through a partnership with the system of
State Agricultural Experiment Stations, land-grant and other colleges
and universities, and other public and private research and education
organizations, CSREES is USDA's principal link to the university
systems for the initiation and development of agricultural research and
education programs. Additionally, CSREES is the Federal partner in the
Cooperative Extension system, a nationwide non-formal educational
network. The challenge CSREES faces is capturing and reporting research
and education results of our partners who conduct and deliver
activities supported in the CSREES Budget. We are currently engaging
our Partners in dialogue to help them understand. This will allow
CSREES to be more responsive to the GPRA mandate. In concert with our
Partners, we have prepared impact statements highlighting research,
education, and extension accomplishments supported by the Federal
investment.
Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
to this committee that the present structure?
Answer. CSREES does not propose to modify its budget account
structure at this time.
Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. CSREES does not propose to modify its budget account
structure.
Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
government functions; and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
perform these functions. Could you comment on your agency's cost
accounting expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. Although the Department has some personnel with cost
accounting expertise, the Department's Chief Financial Officer has
recognized the need for a Department-wide effort to enhance cost
accounting expertise. $240,000 is included in the fiscal year 2001
President's Budget request to provide such leadership. Currently, we
are linking budget program activities to the goals in our annual
performance plan. Ultimately, with additional fiscal year 2001
resources and a better trained workforce, the Department will continue
to implement improvements in this area.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to
have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting. The clearly preferred
methodology for such a system, as stated in that standard, is the one
known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby the full cost is
calculated for each of the activities of an agency. What is the status
of your agency's implementation of the Managerial Cost Accounting
requirement, and are you using Activity-Based Costing?
Answer. USDA is in compliance with FASAB's cost accounting
standards. The Department has identified responsibility segments, for
which financial statement reporting is provided, employing full cost
techniques that include unfunded pension and accrued annual leave,
Federal Employment Compensation Act accrued expenses, GSA rent,
depreciation, and other expense items that are appropriate. Currently,
the Department uses several costing techniques, including Activity-
Based Costing, that permit us to determine the cost of our strategic
goals and selected output activities.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
and depreciation?
Answer. The Department's current goal is to implement the
Foundation Financial Information System throughout all USDA agencies in
order to provide standardized accounting methodologies and improve data
integrity for management and reporting purposes for salaries and
expenses and administrative operations. As the Department improves its
basic accounting and reporting processes, it will be able to better
identify activities and outputs for unit costing and will evaluate the
various accounting methodologies available and incorporate the
appropriate methodology for the activity being costed.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the program, and results of these
activities?
Answer. Yes, we strongly believe that effective implementation of
costing systems will vastly improve Federal planning, evaluation, and
reporting at all levels of the organization.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with any
particular performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to the goals?
Answer. The dollars associated with the performance goals represent
the total amount appropriated for CSREES programs including Federal
administration funds retained by the agency to administer the programs.
In addition, estimated reimbursable funds and mandatory funds for
programs administered by CSREES are included.
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
the development of the agency's performance plan.
Answer. We have no specific regulatory reform measures associated
with the development of the agency's performance plan.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 performance plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievement?
Answer. The strategic plan does mention external factors that could
influence goal achievement. While we cannot predict how the factors
will influence goal achievement, we attempt to engage customers and
stakeholders in a way that would minimize the impact of external
factors on programs.
Question. If so, what steps have you identified to prepare,
anticipate and plan for such influences?
Answer. To anticipate and plan for the influence of external
factors, we look to other Federal agencies for mechanisms to coordinate
research and education programs. This permits joint identification of
issues and the appropriate role of all participants. These steps help
us to understand, predict, and respond to the external factors that
influence goal achievement.
Question. What impact might external factors have on your resource
estimates?
Answer. While we cannot predict how the factors will influence goal
achievement, we attempt to engage customers and stakeholders in a way
that would help our agency respond to their concerns through the
research and education programs that we manage.
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication?
Answer. CSREES manages formula funds, special grants, and
competitive grants in a way to minimize unnecessary program
duplication. All programs/projects are subject to merit and peer review
and internal reviews to address this concern.
Question. If so, does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or
duplication?
Answer. The agency performance plan is written to eliminate the
overlap and duplication of funding in support of programs.
Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
and if so, how?
Answer. Agencies should address management challenges and potential
duplication. Our agency has included a specific agency goal
``Responsive and Effective Management Systems.'' This includes
strategies that improve information management systems and financial
management.
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
guide decision making?
Answer. GPRA has challenged our agency to focus on those issues and
program areas that are important rather than solely focusing on the
funding mechanisms to support programs. With a diverse funding
portfolio consisting of formula funds, competitive grants, multi-state,
and integrated projects, we should be in a position to respond to
issues that are of the greatest national importance.
Question. Will this use increase in the future and if so in what
ways?
Answer. We will continue to use GPRA, as well as other
accountability strategies, that demonstrate a willingness to respond to
national programs of importance.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that to what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
to allow for these kinds of uses?
Answer. We believe that we can with some degree of confidence
establish milestones that demonstrate movement towards targets--outputs
and outcomes.
Question. Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making
estimates for certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the
accuracy of resource estimates?
Answer. The questions raised under GPRA relate to accountability
expectations associated with the budget. While we have always responded
to questions of accountability, there appears to be a difference in
expectations between the agencies and those who review the results of
our expectations. As we submit future reports and receive feedback,
these differences will be minimized, and we will be on target in
reporting outputs and outcomes. For example, in the Performance Plan,
we recognize that in our research and education activities, results and
performance measures occur over time, and in many instances, over
several years. However, when the performance plan is read, the reader
expects all performance measures to be reported within one year.
Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements?
Answer. CSREES is not requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements.
Question. Specifically, are you requesting any relaxation of
transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
accountability commitments?
Answer. CSREES is requesting no relaxation of transfer or
programming controls in return for specific accountability commitments.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 2000 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. We are supporting the revision of the REE mission area
strategic plan. However, the agency does not expect to make substantive
revisions to our strategic plan.
______
OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. They link to OBPA's mission and sole program activity by
assessing the quality, value, and usefulness of information provided to
the Office of the Secretary and policy officials; they link to the
strategic goals by measuring specific activities and products that
support the provision of useful information.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities? What difficulties, if any,
did you encounter, and what lessons did you learn?
Answer. OBPA examined activities supported by its single budget
account and established goals to evaluate the products and services it
provides to its stakeholders while ensuring that they are consistent
with Departmental policy and valuable to the decision making process.
Quantifying the value of these products was the greatest challenge.
This value is dependent, to a large degree, on subjective judgement of
those parties OBPA supports. OBPA learned that it could capitalize on
existing consultation processes to seek feedback on the utility of its
products and services. Additionally, OBPA has learned to use some
quantifiable measures under its management initiatives to gauge
progress in staff development and training that is integral to
successful performance.
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget? Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. Performance measures are associated with OBPA's single
account.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification? Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2001? Will you propose any changes to the
program activities described under that account structure?
Answer. The performance planning structure can be easily related to
OBPA's single account. We are not planning changes to the account
structure.
Question. How were performance measures chosen? How did the agency
balance the cost of data collection and verification with the need for
reliable and valid performance data? Does your plan include performance
measures for which reliable data are not likely to be available in time
for your first performance report in March 2000?
Answer. Measures were chosen based on an analysis of OBPA's mission
and role, the products and services it provides, and the resources
necessary to maintain high performance. Cost considerations, balanced
with OBPA's role, led to a determination that quantifying the utility
of its products and services would add little to no value at a high
cost. Data will be available in time for the first report.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
2000 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results? For each key annual goal, indicate whether
you consider it to be an output measure or an outcome measure. State
the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and objective from the
agency Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is linked.
Answer. All of OBPA's performance goals under its three strategic
goals are of equal value in tracking program results. They represent
outcomes that validate and confirm the outputs OBPA produces are
useful, valuable, and consistent with Departmental policy--these
outcome goals are further supported by performance indicators which
predominantly represent outputs. OBPA's quantified performance goal
under its management initiative to ``maintain or increase the percent
of all employees who receive training or other professional
development'' is worthy of tracking. While the actual percentage is an
output, it contributes to the outcome that OBPA maintains a highly-
skilled staff. This relates to OBPA's general long-term Management
Initiative to ``Build a more productive and diverse workforce.''
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. Realizing that it is difficult to measure the performance
of a staff agency such as OBPA, performance goals were developed that
would capture the utility of products and services through informal
feedback and consultation with key stakeholders.
Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
Answer. Yes, OBPA has a staff of highly-skilled managers and
support analysts with backgrounds and on-the-job experiences that equip
them with the necessary skills and knowledge to assess the efficiency
and effectiveness of the agencies and programs they oversee.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
external customers.
Answer. While OBPA does not directly measure customer satisfaction,
the performance goals do seek feedback from its internal customers--the
Office of the Secretary and other senior level policy officials--and
external customers--OMB and Congress--as to the utility of its
products.
Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 2000
Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 Budget?
If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by this committee,
will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact the change would
have on the level of program performance and the achievement of various
goals?
Answer. To ensure that OBPA's goals would be met, OBPA assessed its
resource and staffing needs. It determined that the desired level of
program performance is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain as
staff resources have decreased and program and budget complexity has
increased. To meet these needs, OBPA requests an increase for pay costs
to maintain staff levels and be in a position to use base funding to
provide staff training and professional development. Without this
increase, staff resources will be strained and the absorption of pay
costs will make it difficult to maintain a high level of performance or
to provide for employee development. If a proposed number is changed up
or down, OBPA would be able to indicate the likely impact on
performance.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results? If so, who has access to the information--senior management
only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too? Are you able to
gain access easily to various performance-related data located
throughout your various information systems?
Answer. Yes, senior as well as program managers have easy access to
the performance data OBPA maintains on its information systems.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget. Many agencies have indicated that their
present budget account structure makes it difficult to link dollars to
results in a clear and meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty?
Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account structure were
modified? If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
to this committee than the present structure? How would such
modification strengthen accountability for program performance in the
use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. As a staff office, OBPA only has one program activity and
does not believe its budget structure represents a significant
challenge or that it should be modified.
Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
government functions; and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
perform these functions. Could you comment on your agency's cost
accounting expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. Because OBPA is a small staff office, it relies on the
Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) for budget and accounting
services and expertise. Based on OCFO guidance and additional direction
provided by OMB, OBPA links GPRA to the budget process.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to
have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting. The clearly preferred
methodology for such a system, as stated in that standard, is the one
known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby the full cost is
calculated for each of the activities of an agency. What is the status
of your agency's implementation of the Managerial Cost Accounting
Requirement, and are you using Activity-Based Costing? Will you be able
in the future to show this committee the full and accurate cost of each
activity of each program, including in those calculations such items as
administration, employee benefits, and depreciation? By doing so, would
we then be able to see more precisely the relationship between the
dollars spent on a program, the true costs of the activities conducted
by the program, and the results of these activities? Will you be able
to show us the per-unit cost of each activity and result? To what
extent do the dollars associated with any particular performance goal
reflect the full cost of all activities performed in support of that
goal? For example, are overhead costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. This issue will be further dealt with as USDA moves to a
Department-level approach. At the present time, OBPA does allocate the
full cost of activities to its goals.
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
the development of the agency's performance plan.
Answer. OBPA does not issue program regulations and therefore has
not put in place any such measures.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 performance plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievement? If so, what steps have you identified
to prepare, anticipate and plan for such influences? What impact might
external factors have on your resource estimates?
Answer. External factors OBPA attempts to prepare for include
changing policy priorities and funding levels. While the 2000
performance plan does not specifically mention these as external
factors with identified response strategies, OBPA does have the
processes in place to respond to such challenges. By monitoring policy
trends and critical issues in the agricultural sector, OBPA tries to
anticipate changing priorities and shift staff resources as
appropriate.
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication? If so,
does the Performance Plan identify overlap or duplication?
Answer. No, OBPA has clear lines of responsibilities divided among
its budget, program analysis, and legislative, regulatory, and
automated systems divisions.
Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
and if so, how?
Answer. Certainly, in a decentralized agency such as USDA, this is
a key issue. GPRA planning efforts should address these challenges in
the means and strategies sections of agency performance plans as well
as through management initiatives.
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
guide decision making? Will this use increase in the future and if so
in what ways?
Answer. As mentioned previously, it has been difficult for staff
offices like OBPA to use GPRA as an effective guide. Many of the
activities OBPA has described in its plans have always been critical
components of its performance. The office has long valued good
management practices and effective coordination. As USDA moves to a new
strategic planning approach, staff offices will then be able to focus
more on how they contribute to overall departmental success.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or targeted performance. Given
that: To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
to allow for these kinds of uses? Are there any factors, such as
inexperience in making estimates for certain activities or lack of
data, that might affect the accuracy of resource estimates?
Answer. Keeping in mind the difficulties associated with measuring
the performance of a staff office such as OBPA, the performance
measures are adequate.
Question. Are you requesting any waivers on non-statutory
administrative requirements? Specifically, are you requesting any
relaxation of transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
accountability commitments?
Answer. No.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 2000 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. OBPA's 2000 Performance Plan contained changes from
previous plans by eliminating indicators that did not contribute to the
measurement of program performance, but there is no need for
substantive change.
______
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. OGC's annual performance plan defines our performance goals
and measures that are used to assess progress over the coming years.
OGC's mission and strategic goal is centered around providing effective
legal services in a responsive manner that is consistent with the
priorities of the Secretary. In order to respond effectively to those
priorities, we have established in our budget activity a request to
increase legal services provided to the Department, as well as a goal
to improve computer technology and communication tools in order to
improve the productivity of employees of the agency
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities?
Answer. OGC only has one strategic goal and one budget activity. As
previously stated, the goal centers around making OGC more responsive
by ensuring that demands for legal services are prioritized in a manner
consistent with the priorities of the Secretary. Our budget is
consistent with that goal and those priorities.
Question. What difficulties, if any, did you encounter, and what
lessons did you learn?
Answer. Because the budget activity for OGC is requested via a
single line item in the budget, we did not encounter any difficulties.
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget?
Answer. The performance plan for OGC does link performance measures
to its budget.
Question. Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. Performance measures exist for OGC's account for legal
services
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Answer. OGC's performance planning structure does not differ from
the account and activity structure in the budget justification.
Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. OGC does not plan to propose ant changes to the account
structure for fiscal year 2001.
Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
described under that account structure?
Answer. We do not anticipate any need to change or modify the
program activities under the account structure.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. The performance measures were based on the fact that OGC is
a staff agency which responds primarily to the needs of the USDA agency
clients. Thus, interviews of Under and Assistant Secretaries, as well
as other officials, were conducted to determine what aspects of OGC's
performance were of most importance.
Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
Answer. Interviews and surveys of agency heads were chosen as the
most effective and cost-efficient way to measure performance.
Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. Data from the performance surveys are not likely to be
available for the first performance report in March 2000.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
2000 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results? For each key annual goal, indicate whether
you consider it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome
measure (``how well''). State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general
goal and objective from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual
goal is linked.
Answer. The mission of OGC is to provide legal services necessary
to support activities of the USDA. OGC provides legal services
primarily to the Secretary of Agriculture and officials at all levels
of USDA as well as members of Congress concerning the programs and
activities carried out by USDA. All legal services are centralized
within OGC and the General Counsel reports directly to the Secretary.
The Office of the General Counsel will provide legal services in a
responsive manner to USDA officials, executive branch officials and
members of Congress. OGC has 6 objectives that support its mission and
strategic goal. They are: (1) OGC will provide effective legal services
in a responsive manner to support USDA activities, consistent with the
priorities established by the Secretary of Agriculture, (2) OGC will
review for legal sufficiency, draft regulations submitted by USDA
agencies and advise the appropriate USDA officials of the results of
the review, (3) OGC will draft and conduct a legal review of documents
as requested by USDA and Executive Branch officials, (4) OGC will
conduct litigation on behalf of USDA officials and will provide
litigation support services to the Department of Justice in cases
arising out of USDA programs and activities, (5) OGC will draft
legislation and review for legal sufficiency legislative reports and
testimony as requested by USDA officials, (6) OGC will provide
counseling to USDA officials concerning issues arising out of USDA
programs and activities. Each of these objectives is measured by a
combination of customer satisfaction measures (outcome) and output
measures of OGC's workload.
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. The efforts to ensure that the goals in the plan included a
significant number of outcome measures were both external and internal.
Externally, OGC's interviews of Under and Assistant Secretaries focused
on the responsiveness of OGC both quantitatively and qualitatively. The
surveys of agencies will also include both measures. Internally, OGC is
requiring quarterly workload assessments from its managers. These
workload assessments measure both the objective quantifiable number of
OGC cases and the complexity and difficulty of the cases. Managers are
asked to critically report, in various forums, on the outcome of
significant legal efforts throughout OGC.
Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
Answer. The managers clearly understand the difference between
workload and effectiveness. The range of OGC legal work, from routine
and quantity-driven paper filings to complex class actions, requires
that the managers assess both output and effectiveness.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please indicate examples of both internal and
external customers.
Answer. OGC will be using surveys of agency clients and management
reports which reflect anecdotal evidence regarding customer
satisfaction.
Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 2000
Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
Answer. In order to develop the fiscal year 2001 budget, OGC
conducted reviews of our fiscal year 2000 Annual Performance Plan. That
review included surveys of agency officials concerning OGC's
performance--effective, responsive legal services especially with
respect to priority matters--as it relates to the performance
indicators in the plan. Throughout these surveys, it became clear that
agency officials wanted legal reviews to be provided in a more
responsive and effective manner, taking into account established
priorities. Therefore, OGC's fiscal year 2001 budget focused on
ensuring that resources would be made available to meet the foremost
legal service needs of the Department.
Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by
this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact
the change would have on the level of program performance and the
achievement of various goals?
Answer. Should funding be provided at a level that is greater or
less than requested, OGC would be able to indicate the impact the
change would have on the level of program performance and the
achievement of various goals.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results?
Answer. The Office of the General Counsel has a Work Tracking
System, (WTS) which utilizes Paradox software and which has the
capability to track OGC performance indicators on a regular basis.
Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
Answer. The information provided by the WTS is available and easily
accessible to all of managers.
Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
performance-related data located throughout your various information
systems?
Answer. Performance-related data is easily accessable.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget. Many agencies have indicated that their
present budget account structure makes it difficult to link dollars to
results in a clear and meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty?
Answer. OGC's present budget structure does not make it difficult
to link dollars to results in a clear and meaningful way.
Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
structure were modified?
Answer. No.
Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
to this committee than the present structure?
Answer. N/A.
Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. N/A.
Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
government functions; and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
perform these functions. Could you comment on your agency's cost
accounting expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. Although the Department has some personnel with cost
accounting expertise, the Department's Chief Financial Officer has
recognized the need for a Department-wide effort to enhance cost
accounting expertise and $240,000 is included in the fiscal year 2001
President's Budget request to provide such leadership. Currently, we
are linking budget program activities to the goals in our annual
performance plan. Ultimately, with additional fiscal year 2001
resources and a better trained workforce, the Department will continue
to implement improvements in this area.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standard Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to
have a system of Managerial cost Accounting. What is the status of your
agency's implementation of the Managerial Cost Accounting requirement,
and are you using Activity-Based Costing.
Answer. USDA is in compliance with FASAB's cost accounting
standards. The Department has identified responsibility segments, for
which financial statement reporting is provided, employing full cost
techniques that include unfunded pension and accrued annual leave,
Federal Employment Compensation Act accrued expenses, GSA rent,
depreciation, and other expense items that are appropriate. Currently,
the Department uses several costing techniques, including Activity-
Based Costing, that permit us to determine the cost of our strategic
goals and selected output activities.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
and depreciation.
Answer. The Department's current goal is to implement the
Foundation Financial Information System throughout all USDA agencies in
order to provide standardized accounting methodologies and improve data
integrity for management and reporting purposes for salaries and
expenses and administrative operations. As the Department improves its
basic accounting and reporting processes, it will be able to better
identify activities and outputs for unit costing and will evaluate the
various accounting methodologies available and incorporate the
appropriate methodology for the activity being costed.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the programs, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. Yes, we strongly believe that effective implementation of
costing systems will vastly improve Federal planning, evaluation, and
reporting at all levels of the organization.
Question. Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each
activity and result?
Answer. As the Department implements activity based costing, it
will be able to provide unit costs for activities and results.
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
the development of the agency's performance plan.
Answer. None.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 performance plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievement? If so, what steps have you identified
to prepare, anticipate and plan for such influences? What impact might
external factors have on your resource estimates?
Answer. External factors that could influence goal achievement are
increased litigation at all levels, but particularly in the civil
rights and environmental sectors. Substantial increases in litigation
have a substantial impact on OGC's resources, particularly staffing
requirements.
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication? If so,
does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or duplication?
Answer. There are no overlapping functions or program duplication
within OGC.
Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
and if so, how?
Answer. N/A.
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
guide decision making? Will this use increase in the future and if so
in what ways?
Answer. GPRA has been used to assist both managers in OGC and
throughout USDA in planning for how legal resources will be used and
prioritized. If the leadership shares a common set of priorities, OGC
resources can be used more effectively to meet program goals. Also, a
management seminar for OGC managers is planned for late spring which
will incorporate the GPRA.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that: To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
to allow for these kinds of uses? Are there any factors, such as
inexperience in making estimates for certain activities or lack of
data, that might affect the accuracy of resource estimates?
Answer. Since the implementation of the WTS we have continued to
refine the system to assure its accuracy in meeting management's
desires objectives.
Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements? Specifically, are you requesting any
relaxation of transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
accountability commitments?
Answer. OGC is not requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 2000 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. More emphasis should be placed on the substantial rise of
litigation throughout OGC, particularly in the civil rights and forest
service sectors, and the resources needed to adequately address the
increased workload.
______
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. The mission of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer--
OCFO--is to shape an environment in which USDA officials have and use
high quality financial and performance information to make and
implement effective policy, management, stewardship, and program
decisions. The OCFO has established three strategic goals to support
this mission, identified strategic objectives under each goal, and
developed key performance goals to accomplish the objectives.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities?
Answer. The performance goals in the Annual Performance Plan are
clearly linked to OCFO's strategic goals. These goals link to OCFO's
single appropriation account--program activity--and to the Working
Capital Fund. The major share of appropriated funds, approximately 85
percent of the total in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, support
Strategic Goal 1: Promote sound financial management through
leadership, policy, and oversight. The remainder supports Strategic
Goal 2: Create an infrastructure to carry out financial management
policies. In addition, OCFO has reimbursable funds, which support Goal
1 only. Working Capital Funds, provided through client payments for
goods and services, support Goal 2 and Goal 3: Operate a financial
center that produces timely and reliable information and services. The
allocation of funds and FTEs for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001
are shown in the following table.
[The information follows:]
OCFO RESOURCES BY GOAL AND SOURCE OF FUNDS
[Funds in thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2000 Fiscal Year 2001
Funding ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 All goals Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 All goals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriated....................................................... $4,191 $769 ......... $4,960 $5,462 $1,003 ......... $6,465
FTEs........................................................... 58 11 ......... 69 58 11 ......... 69
Reimbursable....................................................... $2,130 ........ ......... $2,130 $2,252 ......... ......... $2,252
FTEs........................................................... 19 ........ ......... 19 19 ......... ......... 19
Working Capital Fund............................................... ........ $19,531 $172,773 $192,304 ........ $25,160 $176,016 $201,176
FTEs........................................................... ........ 44 1,626 1,670 ........ 44 1,626 1,670
Total.............................................................. $6,321 $20,300 $172,773 $199,394 $7,714 $26,163 $176,016 $209,893
FTEs........................................................... 77 55 1,626 1,758 77 55 1,626 1,758
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What difficulties, if any, did you encounter, and what
lessons did you learn?
Answer. Our organizational structure did not reflect the strategic
plan. We have taken the necessary steps to restructure the organization
so the staff resources will be better positioned to meet the strategic
plan's goals.
Question. Does the Agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget?
Answer. Yes, it does. Resource increases to accomplish the budget
year performance targets are discussed in the Annual Performance Plan
with respect to means and strategies for accomplishing the performance
goals. Total resource requirements in the plan tie directly to the
budget request.
Question. Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. Our Plan has performance measures for both our single
appropriation account and the Departmental Working Capital Fund. The
performance measures for the direct appropriation are primarily linked
to Goal 1. Those for the Departmental Working Capital Fund are
primarily linked to Goals 2 and 3.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Answer. Currently, performance planning occurs along organization
lines, mainly within each Division, and resources are allocated along
organizational lines. Because the budget also is developed along
organizational lines, plans and resources feed directly into the budget
activity structure.
Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. At this time, we do not anticipate any.
Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
described under that account structure?
Answer. No, not at this time.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. After careful review of the OCFO's primary business lines,
we identified those business outcomes that would best illustrate USDA's
progress in financial management.
Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
Answer. Our performance goals are based primarily on information we
already have available or expect to have available for performance
reports. As we improve our plan and report, we must achieve greater
specificity in our plan, emphasize quality in financial management
data, and move toward outcome-oriented performance measures. We expect
these changes to be reflected in our revised Strategic Plan and
subsequent Annual Performance Plans.
Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. No, it does not. Our current measures can be quantified.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
2000 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results?
Answer. We recommend that you track performance goals related to
achieving an unqualified audit opinion on the USDA consolidated
financial statements, thus improving the quality of USDA financial
information; reducing the ratio of collectable delinquencies;
implementing the Foundation Financial Information System; and
increasing the number of clients currently using the NFC payroll
facilities.
Question. For each key annual goal, indicate whether you consider
it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measure (``how
well'').
Answer. All four annual goals include elements of both measures.
For example, if OCFO issues a policy, that policy reflects and output.
The Department achieves an outcome if this policy results in better
decision-making that reduces costs or improves services.
Question. State the long-term--fiscal year 2003--general goal and
objective from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is
linked?
Answer. This information has been incorporated into the following
table.
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Key performance
Strategic goal objective goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Promote sound financial 1.1. Achieve an Unqualified audit
management through leadership, unqualified audit opinion on the
policy, and oversight. opinion on USDA's USDA consolidated
consolidated financial
financial statements for
statements.. the prior fiscal
year.
1.3. Reduce Improve the ratio
outstanding of collectable
delinquent debts delinquencies to
to USDA and limit total
the increase in receivables.
number of new
delinquencies,
and increase use
of Electronic
Funds Transfer
(EFT) for payment.
2. Create an infrastructure to 2.1. Implement an Implement the
carry out financial management integrated Foundation
policies. financial Financial
management Information
information System (FFIS)
system for USDA.
3. Operate a financial center 3.2. Expand the Increase in number
that produces timely and NFC customer base of newly
reliable information, and to increase implemented
services.. volume and reduce payroll accounts
unit cost.. (number of new
employees)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. The OCFO Annual Performance Plan is realistic and reflects
current priorities, given the financial management challenges facing
the Department. As OCFO gains experience with GPRA and strategic
planning, and, as an integrated financial management system is
established throughout USDA, we expect we will shift to even more
outcome oriented measures, so we can better establish how well we are
performing. A better financial infrastructure, complete with compliant
systems and sound business practices, will lead to more outcome-
oriented measures.
Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
Answer. Our managers do understand differences between outputs and
outcomes. OCFO managers have had GPRA training and we have facilitated
discussions on strategic planning and GPRA.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
external customers.
Answer. Measures of customer satisfaction have not yet been
established for OCFO, but we are developing several measurements,
particularly with respect to the National Finance Center and the
multiple administrative services we provide there.
Question. How were the measured goals of your fiscal year 2000
Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 Plan describes what can be
accomplished with current resources. Using that information, we
established our priorities, the desired goals and requisite performance
level needed for fiscal year 2001, and identified the additional
resources required to achieve desired performance. Many of the
initiatives were proposed in response to deficiencies brought to our
attention by the General Accounting Office, the Inspector General, and
central guidance agencies. The need for an additional $1.5 million is
justified in the Explanatory Notes for fiscal year 2001.
Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by
this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact
the change would have on the level of program performance and
achievement of various goals?
Answer. Yes, we will. The performance improvements identified for
fiscal year 2001 above the fiscal year 2000 level shown in Goal 1 are
clearly quantified, and we would be able to explain the impact of any
significant change to the request.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results?
Answer. Based on our current measures, we have the technological
capability; however, we are discovering that there is a need to make
refinements in the level of detail reported and how it is reported.
Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
Answer. Currently, information is available to management at
varying levels of the organization depending on the measure. We are
reviewing our internal planning and reporting processes with a view
toward making them more inclusive, available to all management levels,
and used in the every-day planning and decision making process.
Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
performance-related data located throughout your various information
systems?
Answer. Based on our current measures, we are able to compile the
necessary data from several systems. This does, however, require
cooperation from our client organizations, particularly with respect to
our debt performance measures.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget. Many agencies have indicated that their
present budget account structure makes it difficult to link dollars to
results in a clear and meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty?
Answer. No, we have not. Our budget structure is relatively
straight forward, which makes the necessary linkages easy to
accomplish.
Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
structure were modified?
Answer. No, our budget structure is adequate.
Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
to this committee than the present structure?
Answer. We do not believe that a modification is necessary.
Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. We believe that the current structure provides sufficient
accountability for program performance.
Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
government functions: and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
perform theses functions. Could you comment on your agency's cost
accounting expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. The number of personnel currently assigned to cost
accounting and their respective levels of expertise vary widely from
one agency to another. However, we are making progress. Several
agencies have implemented cost accounting techniques, including
Activity-Based Costing--ABC, in their financial management activities.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Food Safety
Inspection Service, Agricultural Research Service, Office of Inspector
General, and the Farm Service Agency each have implemented ABC in their
operations and currently use it for performance measurement and
reporting, as appropriate. In addition, the Office of Chief Financial
Officer has begun implementing ABC at the National Finance Center and
plans to use it for performance measurements in selected situations.
OCFO recognizes the need to lead a Department-wide effort to
enhance its cost accounting expertise and has included $240,000 in its
fiscal year 2001 President's Budget request to provide such leadership.
In addition, the OCFO's on-going Professional Development Program
requires its candidates to complete two courses on cost accounting,
along with several other financial management courses. This
professional development program and the specific cost accounting
training will contribute considerably to enhancing USDA's reporting
capabilities under GPRA. Currently, all USDA agencies have linked
budget program activities to strategic goals, with some linked down to
performance goals. Ultimately, with the additional fiscal year 2001
resources and a better trained workforce, USDA will continue to
implement improvements in cost accounting.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standard Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to
have a system of Managerial cost Accounting. The clearly preferred
methodology for such a system, as stated in that standard, is the one
known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby the full cost is
calculated for each one of the activities of an agency. What is the
status of your agency's implementation of the Managerial Cost
Accounting requirement, and are you using Activity-Based Costing.
Answer. USDA still needs to make progress to fully implement
FASAB's cost accounting standards. To advance this initiative we
identified responsibility segments, for which we provide financial
statement reporting, employing full cost techniques that include
allocation of unfunded pension and accrued annual leave, Federal
Employment Compensation Act accrued expenses, GSA rent, depreciation,
and other expense items that are appropriate to allocate. Currently
USDA uses several costing techniques, including Activity-Based Costing,
that permit us to determine the cost of our strategic goals and
selected output activities.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
and depreciation.
Answer. The Department's current goal is to implement the
Foundation Financial Information System throughout all of our agencies
in order to provide standardized accounting methodologies and improve
data integrity for management and reporting purposes for salaries and
expenses and administrative operations. We are moving with a very
aggressive schedule to implement the remaining agencies by fiscal year
2003. As we improve our basic accounting and reporting processes, we
will be able to better identify activities and outputs for unit
costing. At that time, we will evaluate the various accounting
methodologies available and incorporate the appropriate methodology for
the activity being costed.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the programs, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. Yes, we strongly believe that effective implementation of
costing systems will vastly improve Federal planning, evaluation, and
reporting at all levels of the organization.
Question. Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each
activity and result?
Answer. As we implement activity based costing, we will be able to
provide unit costs for activities and results.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with any
particular performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. Our approach will be to capture the full cost of doing
business, capturing overhead and all other applicable costs associate
with performance measures and goals.
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
the development of the agency's performance plan.
Answer. There are no regulatory reform measures involved in OCFO's
Annual Performance Plan.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 performance plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievements?
Answer. With respect to the direct appropriations, we believe that
the performance targets set in our Plan are realistic and achievable as
long as OCFO receives the resources requested for fiscal year 2001.
With respect to the Departmental Working Capital Fund, our Revised
fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 Annual Performance Plan contains
a brief discussion of the need for continued customer support of the
systems and services provided by the National Finance Center--NFC. NFC
provides a variety of services to USDA and non-USDA customers. To
remain competitive, NFC must continually improve the quality and the
cost-effectiveness of services to those customers. NFC's success
depends on its ability to retain current customers and the need to
attract new ones. Consequently, NFC is currently re-engineering its
business processes to improve its operations and is aggressively
pursuing new customers. Because customer satisfaction and an increased
customer base are so critical to the continued viability of NFC, OCFO
has developed performance goals addressing these two areas.
Question. If so, what steps have you identified to prepare,
anticipate and plan for such influences?
Answer. OCFO has identified the following actions to mitigate the
impact of external factors: (1) The Secretary directed the Chief
Financial Officer, in conjunction with the Chief Information Officer
and the Assistant Secretary for Administration, to upgrade and
modernize USDA's administrative systems in a corporate environment to
meet the customers' needs. This process will assure the quality and
integrity of information in USDA's Foundation Financial Information
System, as well as mixed systems in USDA, provide the corporate
reporting required to better manage USDA, and improve corporate
decision making. (2) The National Finance Center--NFC--is conducting a
survey to assess the level of customer satisfaction with the services
it provides to its USDA and non-USDA customers. This survey will
provide important information on customer perceptions about the quality
of NFC's existing services, desired services not currently performed,
and current services that might potentially be discontinued. This
information will improve our ability to assign priorities and target
resources to meet customer needs. (3) NFC plans to improve its
operations through implementation of the Capability Maturity Model--
CMM--Level II throughout NFC by fiscal year 2003. CMM is part of a
discipline for increasing product quality and team productivity, or
reducing development time that helps an organization improve its
software development and management activities. CMM serves as a
standard for software engineering and management practices and is
essential to support the increasing maturity of NFC's software
engineering capabilities. (4) NFC will apply the principles of
``Activity Based Costing'' to its operations to improve its cost
estimating techniques and to identify operating efficiencies.
Question. What impact might external factors have on your resource
estimates?
Answer. Improved business processes can make NFC operations more
efficient, which will reduce the unit cost of providing services.
Although savings to customers may be difficult to quantify, low costs
makes these services more attractive to current and potential
customers.
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication?
Answer. Our mission is well-defined, and we do not believe there is
duplication or overlapping functions. Interestingly enough, we did find
structural problems in our performance objectives that gave the
appearance of overlap and duplication. We have modified and streamlined
the strategic objectives that appear in the Revised fiscal year 2000
Annual Performance Plan to eliminate possible confusion.
Question. If so, does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or
duplication.
Answer. Our Plan contains no overlapping functions or program
duplication.
Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
and if so, how?
Answer. As the lead for implementation of GPRA in USDA, we believe
that it is essential that these issues are addressed in agency Annual
Performance Plans. Whether these issues are addressed in the general
discussion of annual performance goals, in the means and strategies for
accomplishing performance goals, or as external factors will depend on
the agency and its circumstances. We are in the process of developing a
Department-wide Strategic Planning process for USDA, and this is one of
the issues that will be addressed as part of that process.
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
guide decision making?
Answer. GPRA has made us aware that we need to utilize the
principles of strategic planning more effectively in our daily
operations and our decision making processes. As we begin development
of the new strategic plan and the fiscal year 2002 Annual Performance
Plan, we will take steps to integrate GPRA more fully into our program
management. We intend to establish a working group to institutionalize
strategic planning within OCFO. This group will concentrate on ensuring
the proper linkages are made between resources, performance, and
outcomes. They will ensure that lessons learned in working with our
customers and stakeholders are incorporated into our management
processes.
Question. Will this use increase in the future and if so in what
ways?
Answer. We expect that GPRA will become standard practice within
OCFO in the future. We will be reviewing our planning processes in the
very near future and will be better able to describe how we will apply
GPRA at the conclusion of that review.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that: To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
to allow for these kinds of uses?
Answer. The performance measures in the fiscal year 2000 Annual
Performance Plan include elements of output and outcome measures.
Question. Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making
estimates for certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the
accuracy of resource estimates?
Answer. There is a learning curve associated with GPRA
implementation, but we are making progress. We are trying to ensure
that staff at all levels are properly trained and that the proper tools
are available to our managers to link costs to performance. We also are
attempting to ensure that GPRA principles are applied in our daily
operations.
Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements?
Answer. No, we are not requesting waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements.
Question. Specifically, are you requesting any relaxation of
transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
accountability commitments?
Answer. We are not requesting relaxation of transfer or
reprogramming controls.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 2000 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997.
Answer. We have gained substantial insight into GPRA implementation
since the initial strategic plan was issued and expect that there will
be substantive revisions in our strategic plan and qualitative
improvements in our Annual Performance Plans and Reports.
______
FARM SERVICE AGENCY
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. The annual performance goals measure incremental
achievement of the agency's strategic goals and, ultimately, the
agency's mission. Annual performance goals were developed for, and are
directly linked to, the objectives for each strategic goal.
Furthermore, the Annual Performance Plan reflects the program
activities in the agency's budget request, summarized on a GPRA basis,
including FTEs and funding, associated with achievement of annual
performance goals.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities?
Answer. As part of the budget process, an fiscal year 2001 Annual
Performance Plan was developed and submitted which contained
performance goals relating to the agency's strategic plan. The Annual
Performance Plan includes all program activities in the agency's
budget, and reflects the program activities associated with identified
performance goals. Both the Annual Performance Plan and the fiscal year
2001 budget relate the need for resources to achievement of program
performance goals. This linkage also enables decision-makers to assess
the FTEs and funding requirements of the strategic plan goal
encompassing the program activities to the achievement of annual
performance goals.
Question. What difficulties, if any, did you encounter, and what
lessons did you learn?
Answer. Difficulties associated with establishing this linkage
included developing outcome measures for each of the major program
activities included in the budget, while maintaining an Annual
Performance Plan that is informative and concise; and, establishing
quantitative performance goals for program activities to show a
definite cause and effect relationship between the funding requested
for program activities and the expected outcome.
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget?
Answer. Yes. Performance measures were incorporated in budget
material to indicate the performance level needed to achieve the goals
outlined in the 5-year strategic plan and annualized in the performance
plan.
Question. Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. Performance measures were developed for each major FSA
budget account. Performance measures were developed for the strategic
goals and annual performance goals and then linked to budget accounts.
Budget accounts were aggregated to tie in with strategic goals.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Answer. The performance planning structure was aligned with the
structure reflected in the Strategic Plan. As such, annual performance
goals, measures, indicators, and baselines were developed for each of
the agency's strategic goals and management initiatives. The budget
account structure, however, differs from the performance planning
structure. The performance planning structure encompasses both program
and salaries and expenses funding requirements, whereas the budget
account structure is based on individual program funds, broken out by
major activity, with a separate administrative expense account that
consolidates all administrative resources needed to carry out every
agency program and activity.
Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. Presently, there are no plans to change the FSA account
structure for fiscal year 2001, since there is linkage between the
account and activity structure in the budget and GPRA program
activities.
Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
described under that account structure?
Answer. We do not plan to propose any changes to the program
activities under the account structure.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. Agency representatives within their respective areas of
responsibilities developed performance measures. The FSA Strategic
Management and Corporate Operations Staff worked closely with agency
representatives to ensure performance measures captured significant,
vital operations. This ongoing interaction continues as the agency
strives to develop a greater number of outcome measures reflecting
results, or impact, of agency programs.
Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance?
Answer. In many instances, data collection systems and verification
methods were already established prior to the development of
performance measures. As such, managers were able to utilize existing
technology, processes, and resources to collect and evaluate data.
Instances in which data collection systems and/or verification methods
were not available required consideration of several factors to
evaluate the cost versus benefit of data collection and verification
methods. Factors considered included actual/anticipated changes within
program and administrative operations, available technology and
funding, internal and external risk factors, and the degree to which
FSA operations are capable of influencing performance results.
Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. As reflected in the Annual Performance Plan, there are a
limited number of performance measures for which data are not available
for inclusion in the fiscal year 1999 Annual Performance Report, which
is due in March 2000. Instances in which data are not available are
identified in the Annual Performance Report, accompanied by an
explanation supporting the reason data is unavailable and anticipated
timeframes to obtain the data. In lieu of final numbers, the report
contains preliminary data.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
2000 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results?
--For each key annual goal, indicate whether or not you consider it
to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measure
(``how well'').
--State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and objective
from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is
linked.
Answer. The agency was diligent in ensuring that the most critical
performance goals were included in the annual performance plan. We
recommend that the subcommittee track all of the annual performance
goals in the fiscal year 2000 Annual Performance Plan. We feel that the
set of performance goals/measures established for Farm Loan programs
are particularly helpful for tracking program performance (see the
following table).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic foal Objectives Performance goals Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assist eligible individuals and Improve the economic viability of farmers and ranchers.... 5. Reduce direct loan delinquencies....................... Intermediateoutcomes.
families in becoming successful 6. Reduce first year delinquency rate on new loans and
farmers and ranchers. restructured loans.
7. Increase the percentage of guaranteed loans made to
direct borrowers.
Reduce losses in loan programs............................ 8. Reduce losses on direct loans.......................... Intermediateoutcomes.
9. Maintain the guaranteed loan loss rate at or below 2
percent.
Respond to loan making and servicing requests in a timely 10. Reduce direct and guaranteed loan processing times.... Intermediateoutcomes.
manner. 11. Process primary loan servicing requests within 60 days
Maximize financial and technical assistance to under 12. Increase the number of loans to socially disadvantaged Intermediateoutcome.
served groups to aid them in establishing and maintaining farmers/ranchers.
profitable farming operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. During the development of the fiscal year 2000 Annual
Performance Plan, agency managers were reminded of the distinction
between output and outcome measures and were encouraged, to the extent
possible, to develop outcome measures in their area of responsibility.
Currently, the majority of the performance measures in the Annual
Performance Plan are outputs rather than outcomes. Furthermore, output
measures are often most appropriate for evaluating achievement of
annual performance goals, because it often takes multiple years for
outcomes to be achieved and evaluated. The Strategic Management and
Corporate Operations Staff, however, will continue working with program
managers to develop outcome measures, where applicable.
Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
Answer. Agency program managers well understand the distinction
between output and outcome measures. However, developing outcome
measures is often not feasible for interim timeframes, such as the
short-term timeframes encompassed in Annual Performance Plans. In
fiscal year 2000, FSA will be revising its strategic plan, emphasizing
the identification and development of outcome (including intermediate
outcome) measures for objectives and strategic goals.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please use examples of both internal and
external customers.
Answer. As indicated above, one of the agency priorities in fiscal
year 2000 is the development of improved performance measures,
particularly the use of intermediate outcomes to show how our programs
are impacting our customers. FSA conducted an extensive customer
satisfaction survey, in conjunction with our USDA service center
partner agencies, in fiscal year 1999. The revised strategic plan and
subsequent annual performance plans will contain measures of overall
customer satisfaction, satisfaction with program delivery timeliness,
and effectiveness of program delivery efforts. The fiscal year 1999
survey results will be used to develop our performance baselines.
Additionally, each of these measures can be disaggregated by major
program as well as by minority and non-minority customers.
Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 2000
Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
Answer. The measurable goals in the fiscal year 2000 Annual
Performance Plan served as a basis for establishing performance goals
for fiscal year 2001. However, the achievement or non-achievement of
specific performance goals during fiscal year 2000 was not the primary
factor in determining the level of funding requested in the fiscal year
2001 budget. Funding proposals relative to the fiscal year 2001 budget
were primarily based on agency funding priorities associated with
carrying our the agency's mission, and were greatly influenced by the
current economic crisis in production agriculture.
Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by
this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact
the change would have on the level of program performance and the
achievement of various goals?
Answer. The ability to assess the impact of proposed budget changes
on targeted performance will vary among program areas depending on the
extent and nature of proposed funding changes. For instance, the
ability to effectively administer farm loan programs is dependent on
adequate administrative funding levels, and the ability to improve the
economic viability of farmers is dependent on appropriated loan levels.
Farm loan program personnel can immediately assess the impact on
performance and the achievement of various goals if proposed budget
numbers are changed, up or down.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results?
Answer. In most instances, FSA will be able to measure and evaluate
program performance throughout the year. However, data will not be
available for all measures included in the fiscal year 2000 Annual
Performance Plan until new software and/or systems are in place.
Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
Answer. Performance data is available to all levels of management
in the agency.
Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
performance-related data located throughout your various information
systems?
Answer. Yes, we are able to gain access easily to various
performance-related data.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget.
Many agencies have indicated that their present budget account
structure makes it difficult to link dollars to results in a clear and
meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty?
Answer. No, we have not experienced that difficulty. The program
activities in the Annual Performance Plan are linked to the budget. As
a result, performance goals have been developed for each program
activity in the Annual Performance Plan that define the level of
expected performance.
Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
structure were modified?
Answer. Since there is linkage between the budget and the
activities in the Annual Performance Plan, we believe, at this time,
there is no need to modify the agency's budget account structure.
Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
to this committee than the present structure?
Answer. We do not propose to modify the budget structure because
linkage exists between the Annual Performance Plan and the budget.
Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. At the present time, we do not think the modification of
this agency's budget account structure would necessarily strengthen
accountability for program performance.
Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
government functions; and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
perform these functions. Could you comment on your agency's cost
accounting expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. The FSA implemented an activity-based costing pilot project
in 1997 to capture the full cost of administrative services by using
the ``Activity-Based Costing'' process. During the pilot stage of the
project, FSA used the support of a private contractor. Presently, the
agency has three people with one year's experience in cost accounting.
This year FSA will add two additional staff who have limited
experience.
With respect to linkage, the program activities in the agency's
fiscal year 2001 budget request are summarized on a GPRA basis,
including FTE staffing and funding associated with achievement of
annual performance goals. FSA funding and staff year estimates for the
Salaries and Expenses Account support the four GPRA program goals in
the FSA Annual Performance Plan. The funding and staff year estimates
reflect a cost allocation of agency resources based on reviews of
county office workday estimates and functional responsibilities
identified to FSA organizations which are then prorated by Program Goal
to derive Federal funding and FTE's. However, the Farm Loan program
goal estimates are taken directly from the Agricultural Credit
Insurance Fund budget estimates. Within each Program Goal, funding for
implementing Management Initiatives is included, except for State
Mediation Grants, which is separately appropriated.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
OMB, this year for the first time all Federal agencies are required to
have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting.
The clearly preferred methodology for such a system, as stated in
that standard, is the one known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby
the full cost is calculated for each of the activities of an agency.
Question. What is the status of your agency's implementation of the
Managerial Cost Accounting requirement, and are you using Activity-
Based Costing?
Answer. The FSA has been using the ``Activity-Based Costing'' (ABC)
process to capture the full cost of administrative services since 1997.
FSA has continued this process each year since the inception of the
pilot. FSA has successfully used the ABC methodology to substantiate
reimbursable agreements with its customers and to determine the
administrative costs to support the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). FSA/CCC's future plans include an
activity-based costing pilot project within a major program area and to
expand the project to other FSA/CCC programs in upcoming years. FSA/CCC
has identified responsibility segments for financial statement
reporting.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
and depreciation?
Answer. We are presently determining the full cost of our
responsible segments which includes multiple programs. In the future we
plan on capturing the full cost of each program and for certain
programs the full cost of each activity. The level to which we will
drill down into the activities will be determined by the measurements
required to evaluate the performance against the annual performance
plan and management's need for information to control cost, allocate
resources and measure performance against goals.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. If the full cost of each activity for a program is
captured, you will know the cost of administering the program by
activity plus the program expenses paid to the farmers. It will also
provide information on activities which consume the most cost,
resources and unit cost and volume.
Question. Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each
activity and result?
Answer. Based on ABC results for administrative services, per unit
costs and results were reflected for critical activities. Although the
ABC process has not yet been implemented agency-wide, we anticipate
that this type data will be available for other areas of agency
operations.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with any
particular performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. Performance goals in the agency's budgets are not
reflective of the full costs of all associated activities performed in
support of that goal. However, performance goals and program activities
in the budget are linked to the four agency goals in the annual
performance plan, which are presented on a full cost basis. For
example, Goal 1, Farm Programs, includes the salaries and expenses
needed to support that goal. Agency performance goals for specific
program activities in the annual performance plan are not reflective of
the full costs. A basis for determining full cost at this level has not
been developed.
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
the development of the agency's performance plan.
Answer. We have not put any significant regulatory reform measures
in place in conjunction with the development of the agency's
performance plan.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 performance plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievement? If so, what steps have you identified
to prepare, anticipate, and plan for such influences?
Answer. The discussion of external factors is primarily reflected
in FSA's Strategic Plan. The measures in the Annual Performance Plan
are linked to the goals, objectives, and measures in the Strategic
Plan. Therefore, the same external factors identified in the Strategic
Plan will influence achievement of annual performance goals. However,
there are instances where the performance plan does specifically
address external factors and FSA's efforts to mitigate their impact.
Question. What impact might external factors have on your resource
estimates?
Answer. External factors, such as unexpected changes in the
agricultural economy, make it difficult to use past performance goals
as reliable indicators of the level of resources needed in future years
to achieve the agency's mission. External factors, such as policy
debates, also make it extremely difficult to adequately request the
level of resources needed to address critical agency priorities.
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication? If so,
does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or duplication?
Answer. The agency did not identify overlapping functions or
program duplication, within the agency, as a result of the performance
planning process. However, the discussion of partnerships and
coordination in the FSA Strategic Plan reflects government and private
entities with which FSA administers complementary program functions.
The same partnerships and coordination also apply to the program
activities included in the Annual Performance Plan.
Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
and if so, how?
Answer. Agencies should address the most significant management
challenges in GPRA plans. However, where possible, the challenges
should be included within the context of improving program performance.
Differing viewpoints among reviewers and users of GPRA plans as to
which ``management challenges'' should be included in plans make it
difficult to address these issues in the plans.
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
guide decision making?
Answer. To date, strategic plan usage by agency senior management
has been limited.
Question. Will this use increase in the future and if so in what
ways?
Answer. We believe that as the planning process becomes more
ingrained in the agency culture, and as the quality of the planning
documents improve, their usefulness for high level decision making will
increase.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or targeted performance. Given
that, to what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
to allow for these kinds of uses?
Answer. The agency has established measures enabling FSA to compare
targeted to actual performance. However, the planning process is
constantly evolving. The agency is continuing efforts to develop better
measures of program performance. As newer, improved performance
measures are developed and implemented, sufficient time will be
required to facilitate a comparison between targeted and actual
performance, and for establishment of trend data.
Question. Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making
estimates for certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the
accuracy of resource estimates?
Answer. The primary reason for requesting funding is to achieve
expected or targeted performance, given certain assumptions. However,
the uncertainty relative to expected changes in the agricultural
economy, which can not be easily quantified, has an impact on what can
be achieved with available as well as requested resources. Given this
reality, future funding requests will continue to reflect agency
funding priorities with consideration given to performance in the prior
year relative to expected or targeted performance. Although data
available from actual performance will be a factor in deciding on
resources estimates in future years, it is and will continue to be only
one of many factors considered in determining appropriate funding
levels, because much of the agency's workload is imposed by external
sources; i.e., the volatile farm economy and resulting mandatory
producer assistance legislation enacted in response to downturns.
Question. Are you requesting any waivers on non-statutory
administrative requirements: Specifically, are you requesting any
relaxation of transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
accountability commitments?
Answer. We are not requesting any waivers on non-statutory
administrative requirements.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 2000 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. FSA's strategic plan will be revised in fiscal year 2000 to
reflect additional programs implemented, revisions to existing
programs, and to improve on the overall content of the fiscal year 1997
plan. One of the ways FSA intends to improve the plan is by reducing
the overall number of strategic goals, objectives, and the volume of
performance measures so that only the most important items are
represented in the agency-wide strategic plan. Secondly, we plan to
incorporate, where feasible, the existing ``Management Initiatives''
into the major program goals. Currently, major activities, such as
outreach, are shown separately from the program goals to which they are
intricately linked. Another area we intend to incorporate into the
program goals is information technology initiatives, better explaining
the relationship between IT investments, program results, and improved
customer satisfaction. Finally, we believe that a more concise plan
will be a more useful tool for managers to guide the agency.
______
RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. RMA's performance goals were derived directly from the
Agency's objectives contained in its strategic plan. RMA documented its
business processes (life cycles) in line with its strategic planning
efforts. These business processes contain the activities that support
the achievement of RMA's performance goals. RMA is currently working to
establish the capability to more directly link program activities,
performance goals, and resource requirements with the strategic plan
components.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities?
Answer. The activities described in the budget justification
support the one general goal ``To strengthen the safety net for
agricultural producers through sound risk management programs and
education. The budget justification links the program activities with
funding for the desired results for program delivery. Performance goals
and indicators in the Agency's Annual Performance plan gauge progress
toward achieving the long-term general goal and objectives found in its
strategic plan.
Question. What difficulties, if any, did you encounter, and what
lessons did you learn?
Answer. RMA's major difficulty at the moment is instituting better
cost accounting.
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget?
Answer. Yes, and we are improving in this regard. The performance
measures specifically link resources to goals, as many of the goals are
financial. The Agency also uses the approach of establishing annual
performance goals and indicators that gauge progress toward achieving
the long-term general goal and objectives found in its strategic plan.
As a result, all resources directly support the general goal of the
Agency, ``To strengthen the safety net for agricultural producers
through sound risk management programs and education.''
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Answer. RMA's performance planning structure and the account and
activity structure in its budget do differ significantly in format and
structure. However, RMA's budget estimates and justifications do
include linkage to the performance goals and indicators found in the
Annual Performance Plan as well as goals and objectives found in the
agency strategic plan. This linkage can be found throughout the
agency's fiscal year 2001 Explanatory Notes package and 2000 and 2001
Annual Performance Plan. In addition, it is important to note that
RMA's performance plan is consistent with the Agency strategic plan and
fiscal year 2001 budget request, as required. The following is a
description of both the performance planning structure and program
activities found in RMA's budget request:
--The performance planning structure in the annual plan outlines the
performance goals and indicators that RMA would like to
accomplish in the given fiscal year. This structure is very
similar to that found in RMA's 5-year strategic plan which
focuses on the mission, goal and objective of the agency.
--RMA's budget account and activity structure currently includes two
accounts, the mandatory Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund
(FCIC) and the discretionary Administrative and Operating
Expense Account. The FCIC Fund is further broken out by the
following program activities: premium subsidy; delivery
expenses; research and development reform costs; and
apportionment for excess losses. For fiscal year 2001, the A&O
account includes only one program activity, salaries and
expenses.
Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. At the present time, RMA does not propose any changes to
the budget account structure for fiscal year 2001. However, changes may
be necessary if legislation is enacted to reform the Crop Insurance
Program.
Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
described under that account structure?
Answer. Not at this time.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. RMA documented the life cycles for its core business
processes. These life cycles contained the activities as well as
specific inputs and outputs to our process steps. Out of this process,
RMA selected measures that we felt would best allow RMA management to
determine agency results in line with the components defined in the
strategic plan.
Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
Answer. RMA's current measures are primarily based on activity, not
on results. RMA continues to have an interest in collecting performance
measures that are based on results (outcomes). But, to do so would
require considerable resources and additional funding.
Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. Yes. We had difficulty in gauging farmers' use and
knowledge of risk management tools. The collection procedures need to
be improved to assess information regarding the number of producers
attending risk management education courses (RME) and the number of RME
sessions being coordinated or facilitated. We are reviewing steps
necessary to improve the collection process for reporting.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
2000 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results?
Answer. RMA recommends that its performance measures that are
outcome based be used to determine applicable program results. RMA's
output based measures are intended to help support or determine
additional specifics regarding the outcome measures. RMA intends to
conduct quarterly reviews of its available measures and determine their
appropriateness as management tools. RMA fully expects adjustments to
be made to its performance measures as experience is gained in being a
results-based Agency, and new measures are developed.
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. RMA's strategic plan includes outcome measures for each
objective and management initiative in support of our strategic goal.
The intent was to include at least one outcome measure for each
objective and management initiative. RMA recognizes that work needs to
be done to establish or refine these measures. RMA experience with
these measures should increase the maturity and potential benefits that
can be derived for the Agency.
Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
Answer. These measures (i.e., output and outcomes) were explained
and briefed to the Agency's senior management. Discussions and comments
were used to clarify and/or adjust both kinds of measures. RMA intends
to ensure program manager understanding of all GPRA concepts as
implementation progresses.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
external customers.
Answer. RMA has created two projects that will institutionalize the
development and administration of surveys to internal and external
customers. RMA is currently in the definition stage working to
determine: what data elements are needed; what specific questions
should be asked; who should be asked; where are they; what vehicle/
instrument should be used; what should be the frequency of data
collection; and, at what cost. Examples of internal customers include:
employees, unions and other agencies. Examples of external customers
include: private reinsured companies and agricultural producers.
Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 2000
Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
Answer. Actually, the fiscal year 2001 budget process began prior
to the developmental stage of RMA's Annual Performance Plan. However,
throughout the budget preparation process, RMA was able to incorporate
portions of its annual plan throughout the fiscal year 2001 Explanatory
Notes. For example, justifications in the budget request link to the
annual and strategic plans and support the goals within those plans.
The Purpose Statement and Status of Programs sections of the
justification outline the contents of the annual plan and reflect the
resources required to accomplish those goals and measures. RMA feels
that together, these two tools will provide clear direction to manage
RMA's activities for fiscal year 2001. In addition, the annual plan and
budget documents clearly define the Agency's commitment to meet it's
goals.
Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by
this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact
the change would have on the level of program performance and the
achievement of various goals?
Answer. If a budget number is changed RMA can determine the likely
impact the change would have on program performance and goals. For
example, in fiscal year 2000, the FCIC Insurance Fund was apportioned
approximately $953.8 million less than was needed to cover estimated
program expenses because FCIC's unexpended appropriations carried
forward from prior fiscal years had increased. This increase was due to
excellent insurance experience during those prior fiscal years. This
did substantially decrease the FCIC Insurance Fund reserve that would
have been available to cover losses when FCIC experiences loss ratios
which are higher than budgeted loss ratios.
In the future if FCIC's Insurance Fund is apportioned insufficient
funds to cover estimated expenses and the FCIC experienced severe
losses, the FCIC would have to rely on Treasury to immediately provide
funds which the FCIC can use to cover these losses or the FCIC would
not have the funds to reimburse the reinsured companies (ultimately
producers) for losses. The FCIC Act does provide for FCIC to receive
such sums as necessary to cover the mandatory expenses of the FCIC. In
addition, shortages in funding would impact the FCIC's ability to
timely reimburse the reinsured companies for administrative and
operating subsidy per the Standard Reinsurance Agreement.
If appropriations to the Administrative and Operating Fund (A&O
Fund) were cut, RMA would not have sufficient funding to meet all of
the program goals. For example, program expansion and pilot programs
may not be initiated and producers may not be made aware of various
risk management alternatives through educational seminars. In addition,
program oversight would be reduced. One of the more difficult items to
budget for in the A&O Fund is the computer costs which cover costs to
edit data which is transmitted by the reinsured companies and
additional computer costs due to program changes made during the
current fiscal year. Also, the volume of data could increase
substantially and one cannot budget two years in advance to cover these
type of costs. It would be very advantageous if computer costs could be
paid for with mandatory rather than discretionary funding. If RMA's
computer funding is cut, RMA would not be able to edit and validate
data being submitted in order to reimburse companies for losses and
expenses.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results?
Answer. Yes, but it is limited. Budget limitations have hindered
efforts to make access to data more readily available. Budget
constraints have also impacted RMA's ability to move forward on Pattern
Recognition efforts. Pattern recognition systems will be initiated
(fiscal year 2001) to facilitate trend analysis studies, enabling the
Agency to timely identify performance strengths and deficiencies and
seize opportunities for improvement. RMA is working to identify the
technological elements necessary to review, analyze, and make
adjustments in priorities or process steps to ensure achievement of our
performance goals.
Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
Answer. Information generated from systems are available to lower-
level program managers as well as senior management. For example, the
Summary of Business Report which contains detailed crop insurance data
is available to all RMA personnel and is maintained on RMA's web-site.
Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
performance-related data located throughout your various information
systems?
Answer. Yes, for some aspects. For example, our Research and
Development Office utilizes two integrated data processing systems to
receive and validate data transmitted by reinsured companies. Data
validated by RMA's Data Acceptance System (DAS) and Reinsurance
Accounting System (RAS) are used to generate all accounting reports.
Together they provide RMA with a mechanism to ensure that data received
is accurate and reliable to make management decisions.
The Government Performance and Results Act requires that your
agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to define
the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity set
forth in your budget.
Many agencies have indicated that their present budget account
structure makes it difficult to link dollars to results in a clear and
meaningful way.
Question. Have you faced such difficulty?
Answer. Yes. RMA has faced difficulties in linking dollars to
results under the current budget structure, especially in the mandatory
FCIC Fund. For example, it was very difficult to produce quantifiable
and measurable performance goals for program activities such as
delivery expenses paid to reinsured companies. RMA will continue to
make improvements in establishing performance measures to capture the
performance of services provided.
Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
structure were modified?
Answer. RMA, to date, has not thoroughly analyzed the impacts or
potential results of changing the budget account structure for either
the discretionary A&O account or the mandatory FCIC Fund.
Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
to this committee than the present structure?
Answer. To effectively link dollars to results, RMA will need to
modify its present budget account structure. RMA will continue to work
with the Office of Management and Budget to improve its cost accounting
system.
Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. RMA has not yet conducted any analyses to determine an
appropriate account structure. Therefore, it is unclear how any
modifications would strengthen accountability.
Spending significant resources on performance measurement systems
appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not linked to:
(1) real data about what it costs to perform various government
functions; and (2) how to allocate agency resources to perform these
functions.
Question. Could you comment on your agency's cost accounting
expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. Although the Department has some personnel with cost
accounting expertise, the Department's Chief Financial Officer has
recognized the need for a Department-wide effort to enhance cost
accounting expertise and $240,000 is included in the fiscal year 2001
President's Budget request to provide such leadership. Currently, we
are linking budget program activities to the goals in our annual
performance plan. Ultimately, with additional fiscal year 2001
resources and a better trained workforce, the Department will continue
to implement improvements in this area.
Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by the
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by OMB,
this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to have
a system of Managerial Cost Accounting.
The clearly preferred methodology for a system, as stated in that
standard, is the one known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby the
full cost is calculated for each of the activities of an agency.
Question. What is the status of your agency's implementation of the
Management Cost Accounting requirements, and are you using Activity-
Based Costing?
Answer. USDA is in compliance with FASAB's cost accounting
standards. The Department has identified responsibility segments, for
which financial statement reporting is provided, employing full cost
techniques that include unfunded pension and accrued annual leave,
Federal Employment Compensation Act accrued expenses, GSA rent,
depreciation, and other expense items that are appropriate. Currently,
the Department uses several costing techniques, including Activity-
Based Costing, that permits us to determine the cost of our strategic
goals and selected output activities.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
and depreciation?
Answer. The Department's current goal is to implement the
Foundation Financial Information System throughout all USDA agencies in
order to provide standardized accounting methodologies and improve data
integrity for management and reporting purposes for salaries and
expenses and administrative operations. As the Department improves its
basic accounting and reporting processes, it will be able to better
identify activities and outputs for unit costing and will evaluate the
various accounting methodologies available and incorporate the
appropriate methodology for the activity being costed.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. Yes, we strongly believe that effective implementation of
costing systems will vastly improve Federal planning, evaluation, and
reporting at all levels of the organization.
Question. Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each
activity and result?
Answer. As the Department implements activity based costing, it
will be able to provide unit costs for activities and results.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with any
particular performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. Not yet, our overhead is funded from discretionary dollars,
not the mandatory account as is the FCIC fund. Thus, we tend to view
them separately. We maintain program cost data by cost centers and
object class, not by crops or counties. The costs are then allocated to
the performance goals.
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
the development of the agency's performance plan.
Answer. There have not been any regulatory reform measures put into
place specifically for RMA Compliance during the past year.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 performance plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievement?
Answer. In our strategic plan, RMA identified several key external
factors that could significantly affect progress in our efforts to
achieve our goal.
Question. If so, what steps have you identified to prepare,
anticipate and plan for such influences?
Answer. RMA conducted Business Process Reengineering (BPR) that
allowed for the opportunity to address some of these factors. The
reengineering plan focused on targeted oversight reviews, shared
program integrity roles, and better communications.
Question. What impact might external factors have on your resources
estimates?
Answer. External factors can have a significant impact on RMA
resource estimates. For example, the level and degree of private sector
involvement in risk management activities will require RMA to adjust
its current expenditures to meet variations in costs.
More importantly, Senate and House conferees are now considering
major crop insurance reform legislation. RMA management has requested
that Congress provide full funding for the implementation of this law,
if it is passed. Substantial changes are planned for the development of
crop insurance policies for specialty crops and under served products,
geographic areas, and producers. Other extensive changes would include
the training of FSA ``fact finding'' case workers, the creation of a
new project to reconcile FSA and RMA data, and the expansion of IT
capabilities to support the new structure.
In the event the proposed legislation is not enacted, current RMA
funds will be insufficient to support its current and approved
programs. RMA recently imposed a moratorium on product expansion and
development because of a shortage of funds: In the past 3 years, its
programs have tripled, while its funding has not appreciably changed.
RMA needs to finance new crop program development, maintain the current
program, expand IT capabilities that will make it possible for farmers
to interact electronically with the agency and insurance companies, and
expand the agency's compliance division for the improved maintenance of
program integrity.
For overall Agency function, the enhancement of RMA's ability to
enter into contract agreements for the development of new insurance
products to accommodate specialty crops, and for the expansion of the
Compliance Division's error rate and data mining capabilities, is an
absolute necessity. If not done, the payment of fees to other agencies
that act on RMA's behalf in contracting matters will require the use of
extensive capital originally intended for more useful purposes.
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication?
Answer. The performance planning process did not identify any
significant duplicative functional or process steps.
Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
and if so, how?
Answer. The Annual Performance Plans should include appropriate
discussion of management challenges. Agencies should coordinate
crosscutting programs so that duplication does not occur in the plans.
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
guide decision making?
Answer. In January of last year, the Risk Management Agency
initiated a series of quarterly executive meetings for the purpose of
discussing and improving Agency performance. At the first meeting, six
macro performance measures were identified: (1) loss ratio, (2) market
information, (3) financial audit, (4) public awareness, (5) program
integrity, and (6) administrative costs. These measures were developed
in consultation with the private insurance sector. At the second
meeting, these macro-level indicators were merged into our operational
strategy to ensure effective and efficient progress in achieving
performance targets.
Question. Will this increase in the future and if so in what ways?
Answer. Yes, RMA will continue to integrate GPRA in the managerial
decision making process. We will continue to examine our strengths and
weaknesses through program evaluations, audits, and conducting
quarterly executive meetings. Congress can encourage this by holding
hearings and providing oversight not on plans, but on the actual
management of the agencies and Departments.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that to what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
to allow for these kinds of uses?
Answer. RMA's measures are still being tested to ensure they are
the right measures allowing for proper results and management of the
Agency. Through time and empirical evidence, RMA will refine its
measures and become more confident in its ability to manage actual
performance with targeted performance.
Question. Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making
estimates for certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the
accuracy of resource estimates?
Answer. Many of RMA's traditional measures are activity based.
While we are still in the process of accessing our outcome measures, we
expect time and experience will improve the degree to which our
resource estimates are accurate.
Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements?
Answer. No.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 2000 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. RMA's fiscal year 2000 performance plan was directly
derived from our strategic plan. RMA expects that changes to the 1977
issued strategic plan will result in adjustments due to program changes
and the legislation on crop insurance reform.
______
OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. As a support entity, the Office of Communications--OC--has
only one program activity, public affairs. OC's budget structure is a
single line item that fully supports its one performance goal.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities?
Answer. Since OC has only one goal, which is supported by its
entire budget, the link between the budget activities and the goal is
established by this relationship.
Question. What difficulties, if any, did you encounter, and what
lessons did you learn?
Answer. In assessing its performance goal, OC was confronted with
the problem that it is a support agency, and as such, an evaluation of
its performance does not rely on the quantifying of communications
products, but rather, on how well the communication products created/
coordinated by OC support the Secretary and agencies, who are the prime
initiators of communications products. It is not logical for a support
entity such as OC to propose that it will produce more press releases
each year or more video products because the needs to the Department
and its agencies to disseminate information to the public are ever
changing and dependent on such unpredictable variables as weather,
plant and animal disease, and health and safety issues. Regardless of
the circumstances, it is OC's responsibility to be able to provide the
maximum support possible to the Department whether that means being
able to produce 100 press releases or 1,000 press releases. This means
that an evaluation of a support agency such as OC cannot be focused on
a quantitative analysis of what has been produced, but must concentrate
on an assessment of their capacity to provide the services required by
those entities it serves.
Question. Does the Agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget?
Answer. OC's budget structure is a single line item that fully
supports its one performance goal and the measures used to meet that
goal.
Question. Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. There is essentially only one ``account'' and as noted
above, it is related to the performance measures.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Answer. OC's budget structure is a single line item that fully
supports its one performance goal.
Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. No changes will be proposed because no change is necessary
to improve the linkage between the performance planning structure and
the account structure.
Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
described under that account structure?
Answer. Again, no changes will be proposed because no change is
necessary.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. Through a series of meetings and the process of developing
the OC Strategic Plan, OC's key managers chose the ``outcome'' measures
that most accurately describe how well OC provides support to the
Department and its agencies.
Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
Answer. Discussions were held with the National Agricultural
Statistics Service to determine the general costs associated with
developing and administering surveys. This data, along with data
derived from OC's past use of surveys, was used to determine a general
cost for surveys. Because OC's budget has limited operational funds, it
was obvious that OC's efforts to conduct surveys could not be expanded
without additional funds being provided.
Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. OC's fiscal year 2000 budget included a request for
additional funding to expand or enhance the evaluation mechanisms used
for GPRA purposes. Since funding was not provided, OC revised its plan
and will rely on existing feedback and evaluation techniques which
provide measures in time for the first report.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
2000 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results?
Answer. There is one key performance goal for OC. We will ensure
the use of all available communications products, technology and
techniques to reach employees and all segments of the American public
to strengthen public knowledge and understanding of USDA's effective
customer services and efficient program delivery to all citizens.
Question. For each key annual goal, indicate whether you consider
it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measure (``how
well'').
Answer. Our measure is an outcome measure.
Question. State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and
objective from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is
linked?
Answer. To support the Department in creating a greater awareness
among the American Public about USDA's major initiatives and services.
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. OC managers and the key personnel involved in identifying
the agency's measures engaged in extensive consultations with the staff
of the Chief Financial Officer to ensure that the plan contained the
appropriate outcome measures.
Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
Answer. Yes, because our work requires that we be responsive to our
customers' communication needs, we are sensitive to the differences
between a workload measure, such as how many copies of a particular
brochure they may need, versus an effectiveness measure, such as
whether that brochure is distributed or designed properly to achieve a
desired outcome of awareness, action, or education.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
external customers.
Answer. There are two primary means that OC will use to measure
customer satisfaction. First, comments received by our staff from USDA
agencies (our internal customers) or the public (our external
customers) are conveyed to management during the daily and weekly OC
planning and coordination meetings. Second, results of random and
periodic surveys that will be conducted of our internal and external
customers, as funds permit, will be used. Such measures will help gauge
whether the intended populations are receiving the information and
whether the information was useful.
Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 2000
Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
Answer. The Office of Communications' determined that it needed to
develop a budget request to obtain the resources critical to
accomplishing the goal in its GPRA plan. The increases proposed in the
fiscal year 2001 budget will be used to add technological enhancements
that allow measurement of communications performance--e.g., Internet
counters or feedback on use of radio and TV products; train OC staff in
the use of the latest technologies; effectively and efficiently provide
information to under served client populations; and to obtain a limited
amount of consulting assistance to gain specialized skills not
currently available on OC staff. Our requested funding for fiscal year
2001 is directly related to our annual performance plan.
Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by
this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact
the change would have on the level of program performance and
achievement of various goals?
Answer. The impact of such a change would be difficult to quantify,
although it would be possible, in general, to identify the expansion or
limitation in OC's capacity to provide support to the Department and
its agencies communications efforts that would result from an up or
down decision.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results?
Answer. Automated systems are not essential to the measuring of
OC's performance. OC uses a constant stream of feedback from the media
and the public to evaluate our performance. Positive or negative
performance indicators are used in evaluating individual performance.
Work accountability is measured by weekly activity and management
reports. Remedies and additional actions are established if performance
falls below the plan.
Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
Answer. All levels of managers participate in the weekly meetings
and have access to the necessary information.
Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
performance-related data located throughout your various information
systems?
Answer. We utilize a system that allows work tracking and cost
measurement for many of our work processes. We also rely on National
Finance Center--NFC--systems to provide financial and administrative
data in support of our performance measures.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget. Many agencies have indicated that their
present budget account structure make it difficult to link dollars to
results in a clear and meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty?
Answer. OC's budget structure is a single line item that fully
supports one performance goal, therefore we have not faced this
problem.
Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
structure were modified?
Answer. No modification is necessary.
Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
to this committee than the present structure?
Answer. No modification is necessary.
Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. No modification is necessary.
Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
government functions: and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
perform these functions. Could you comment on your agency's cost
accounting expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. Although the Department has some personnel with cost
accounting expertise, the Department's Chief Financial Officer has
recognized the need for a Department-wide effort to enhance cost
accounting expertise and $240,000 is included in the fiscal year 2001
President's Budget request to provide such leadership. Currently, we
are linking budget program activities to the goals in our annual
performance plan. Ultimately, with additional fiscal year 2001
resources and a better trained workforce, the Department will continue
to implement improvements in this area.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standard Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to
have a system of Managerial cost Accounting. The clearly preferred
methodology for such a system, as stated in that standard, is the one
known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby the full cost is
calculated for each of the activities of an agency. What is the status
of your agency's implementation of the Managerial Cost Accounting
requirement, and are you using Activity-Based Costing?
Answer. USDA is in compliance with FASAB's cost accounting
standards. The Department has identified responsibility segments, for
which financial statement reporting is provided, employing full cost
techniques that include unfunded pension and accrued annual leave,
Federal Employment Compensation Act accrued expenses, GSA rent,
depreciation, and other expense items that are appropriate. Currently,
the Department uses several costing techniques, including Activity-
Based Costing, that permit us to determine the cost of our strategic
goals and selected output activities.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
and depreciation?
Answer. The Department's current goal is to implement the
Foundation Financial Information System throughout all USDA agencies in
order to provide standardized accounting methodologies and improve data
integrity for management and reporting purposes for salaries and
expenses and administrative operations. As the Department improves its
basic accounting and reporting processes, it will be able to better
identify activities and outputs for unit costing and will evaluate the
various accounting methodologies available and incorporate the
appropriate methodology for the activity being costed.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the programs, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. Yes, we strongly believe that effective implementation of
costing systems will vastly improve Federal planning, evaluation, and
reporting at all levels of the organization.
Question. Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each
activity and result?
Answer. Since OC has only one performance goal, all of its funding
resources are devoted to this one goal.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with any
particular performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. Since OC has only one performance goal, all of its funding
resources, including overhead costs are devoted to this one goal.
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
the development of the agency's performance plan.
Answer. OC does not require the implementation of any significant
regulatory reform measures.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 performance plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievements?
Answer. The plan identifies a change in the public need for
information and funding as the two most significant external factors
that could influence goal achievements.
Question. If so, what steps have you identified to prepare,
anticipate and plan for such influences?
Answer. There are weekly and often daily consultations with the
Department's agencies to anticipate the public's information needs.
Based on these consultations, OC's efforts are continually refined to
meet the needs of the public. The fiscal year 2001 budget request
includes a request for additional funding to expand or enhance the
evaluation mechanisms used by the Office of Communications. If the
requested funding is not provided, OC will rely on existing feedback
and evaluation techniques, and modify them to the degree practical, if
it is apparent that a problem exists in monitoring a specific aspect of
OC's performance.
Question. What impact might external factors have on your resource
estimates?
Answer. Significant changes in either the public's requirements or
the technology required to meet those requirements may require
additional funds to meet those needs.
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication?
Answer. No duplications were identified during development of the
Performance Plan.
Question. If so, does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or
duplication.
Answer. Not applicable.
Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
and if so, how?
Answer. Agencies should address the challenges by linking the
management challenges to their impact on the agency's ability to meet
its performance goals, as well as, their impact on the resources needed
to meet those goals. Obviously, duplication should be eliminated where
feasible. These can be addressed through management initiatives.
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
guide decision making?
Answer. Successful accomplishment of OC's mission has always been
the basis for executive decision making in OC. GPRA has been useful in
emphasizing the focus on performance, but OC's role as a support entity
combined with a lack of funding to refine the tools necessary to
measure performance place some limits on the extent to which GPRA
directly influences executive decision making.
Question. Will this use increase in the future and if so in what
ways?
Answer. It is likely that GPRA and the development of performance
reports and plans will be much more integrated in the OC budget
development process as time passes and OC's GPRA efforts build a
baseline of information for use by managers.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that: To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
to allow for these kinds of uses?
Answer. Much of the work OC does in support of the Secretary's or
Department's primary goals is very visible and is an integral part of
program and mission successes, and in one sense, OC is very mature in
evaluating its performance on actual achievements. We can count number
of products produced and cost to produce them. However, as a support
entity is it very difficult to establish measures that assess OC's
efforts as stand-alone entities rather than as part of the agencies'
programs. OC can be left powerless to provide support if funding is not
appropriated directly or provided from other program sources.
Question. Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making
estimates for certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the
accuracy of resource estimates?
Answer. OC faces three significant challenges: first, the lack of
funds necessary to acquire better and more extensive data related to
internal and external customer satisfaction; second, lack of funds to
upgrade and add new communication technologies offering greater public
access electronically; and third, the difficulty associated with
attempting to independently measure the performance of a support
entity. The lack of funds for survey instruments makes it difficult to
build and maintain a repository of information on OC's performance. The
lack of funding for capital investment for new communications
technologies will soon take its toll in a decreased productivity and
response by OC in supporting Departmental goals. OC's dramatic staffing
reduction over the past 5 years and the aging of computer and
broadcasting technologies will continue to reduce actual performance
unless technology additions bolster or replace staff reductions. Also,
changes in communication technology are so dramatic that communications
products will become less marketable or acceptable causing a decline in
actual performance.
Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements? Specifically, are you requesting any
relaxation of transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
accountability commitments?
Answer. OC is not requesting any relaxation of transfer or
reprogramming controls.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 2000 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997.
Answer. As operations continued during the past year, it became
apparent that the original objectives identified in the 1997 strategic
plan were not representative of the full scope of OC's support of
USDA's goals. After reviewing the plans of other departments and
guidance from OMB, it was determined that a more refined objective and
set of means and strategies would be required. As a result, the
original objectives and means and strategies were replaced by those
given in the fiscal year 1999 performance plan.
______
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. OIG's annual performance goals are linked to the agency's
mission, strategic goals, and program activities by providing an
implementation methodology that in each year moves the agency closer to
achieving the strategic goals. The performance indicators used in the
Annual Performance Plan provide a target and basis for measurement that
provide an assessment of how well OIG has progressed toward achieving
the performance goals.
OIG has three strategic goals that support its mission to conduct
and supervise audits and investigations to prevent or detect fraud and
to improve the effectiveness of USDA programs by recommending changes
that will increase efficiency and reduce wasteful and fraudulent
activities.
The first is to ``Promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in
the administration of USDA programs and operations.'' Two performance
goals are directly linked to this strategic goal: (1) audit and
investigate the most significant programs or areas identified in OIG's
planning process and (2) promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness
of USDA programs by recovering inappropriately spent costs, putting
funds to better use, and avoiding costs.
The second strategic goal is to ``Promote USDA's conformity with
the applicable principles, standards, and related requirements by
fostering improvements in financial systems and financial reporting,
which will enhance the Department's fulfillment of its fiduciary
responsibilities.'' Two performance goals are also directly linked to
this strategic goal: (1) foster improvements in financial systems and
financial reporting by timely issuing financial statement audits and
(2) reduce noncompliance with the applicable principles, standards, and
related requirements in the Department's financial systems and
financial reporting.
The third strategic goal is to ``Promote program integrity by
detecting criminal activity involving USDA programs and personnel.''
Two performance goals are directly linked to this strategic goal: (1)
investigation of fraud within USDA programs and (2) investigation of
allegations involving the integrity of USDA employees.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities?
Answer. OIG has only one budget activity, ``OIG salaries and
expenses.'' All performance goals are directly related to this budget
activity.
Question. What difficulties, if any, did you encounter, and what
lessons did you learn?
Answer. OIG has not encountered any difficulties in linking its
performance goals to its budget activity. With only one budget
activity, all performance goals directly support this activity.
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget?
Answer. Yes. Each strategic goal includes a planned proportion of
the budget for each fiscal year. Within that structure, the performance
measures provide a means of assessing how well OIG has succeeded in
achieving its annual performance goals under each strategic goal.
Question. Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. There is only one account: ``OIG salaries and expenses.''
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Answer. There is no difference between the performance planning
structure and the account and activity structure in the budget
justification.
Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. No changes are planned.
Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
described under that account structure?
Answer. No changes in program activities are planned. OIG is unlike
a typical programmatic agency in that our activities, audits, and
investigations, while subject to improvements in methodology and
application of improved technology, are required to meet prescribed
standards and, therefore, are not subject to changes in the same manner
as other programmatic agencies.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. The performance measures employed by OIG were carefully
chosen to provide a clear means of assessing our annual progress toward
achieving our performance goals. In selecting our performance measures,
we reviewed the measures used by other benchmarking agencies, attended
training seminars provided by outside vendors, consulted with the
Congress, and held focus group sessions with a diversity of members of
other USDA agencies and our own OIG employees. Based on these
activities, we made a determination as to the strategic and performance
goals, objectives, and performance measures that we would apply.
Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
Answer. The cost of data collection was considered in the process
of developing performance measures. We considered several measures and
determined which measures were most appropriate to provide clear and
supportable evidence of our success in achieving our performance goals.
We then assessed the cost of collecting the supporting data for the
measures and selected those that provided reliable information at the
most efficient cost. We already had a data collection system in place
termed ``Consolidated Assignments, Personnel Tracking, and
Administrative Information Network'' (CAPTAIN). We were able to utilize
existing OIG expertise to make modifications to the CAPTAIN reports
that provided the data we required for most of our measures.
Nevertheless, the data for some measures, such as the number of
recommendations made to strengthen financial controls and foster
compliance with laws and regulations, were most efficiently collected
by manual means.
Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. No. All the performance measurement data in the OIG
performance report is in final form.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
2000 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results?
--For each key annual goal, indicate whether you consider it to be an
output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measure (``how
well'').
--State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and objective
from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is
linked.
Answer. General Goal--``Promote economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness in the administration of USDA programs and operations.''
Objectives: (1) identify the most significant programs or areas for
audit and investigation and allocate resources accordingly and (2)
devote audit and investigative resources in the areas identified.
Annual performance goals linked to the general goal.
``Audit and investigate the most significant programs or areas
identified in OIG's planning process.'' This goal is assessed by an
output measure that shows how well OIG was able to anticipate those
audits and investigations of most importance to the Department, the
Congress, and the public and how much of the planned work was carried
out.
``Promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of USDA programs
by recovering costs, putting funds to better use, and avoiding costs.''
This goal is assessed by an outcome measure in that it reflects the
financial recovery that results from OIG's activities.
General Goal--``Promote USDA's conformity with the applicable
principles, standards, and related requirements in financial systems
and financial reporting, which will enhance the Department's
fulfillment of its fiduciary responsibilities.'' Objectives: (1)
identify the system, control, or compliance weaknesses, which preclude
the safeguarding and accountability over funds, property, and assets.
Performance goals linked to the general goal.
``Foster improvements in financial systems and financial reporting
by timely issuing financial statements audits.'' This goal is assessed
by an output measure as it relates to the completion of an activity by
a set date.
``Reduce the noncompliance with the applicable principles,
standards, and related requirements in the Department's financial
systems and financial reporting.'' This goal is assessed by an outcome
measure as it reflects improvements in the Department's financial
systems and reporting as a result of OIG's audit activity.
General Goal--``Promote program integrity by detecting criminal
activity involving USDA programs and personnel.'' Objectives: (1)
identify potential criminal violations impacting the Department, (2)
identify potential misuse of USDA funds, and (3) identify instances of
serious USDA employee misconduct.
Performance goals linked to the general goal.
``Investigation of fraud within USDA programs.'' This goal is
assessed by an output measure as it relates to the number of fraud
investigation reports completed. The percentages of fraud
investigations resulting in (1) criminal prosecutions and (2) fines,
penalties, recoveries, restitutions, cost avoidances, and other
payments are outcome measures that reflect and assess how well we have
performed investigative work.
``Investigation of allegations involving the integrity of USDA
employees.'' This goal is assessed by an output measure as it measures
the number of employee misconduct investigation reports issued. The
percentage of total reported employee misconduct investigations
resulting in corrective or disciplinary actions is an outcome measure
that reflects and assesses performance of investigative work.
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. In selecting the goals in the Annual Performance Plan, we
made sure that, among the potential measures that could be used to
assess progress in achieving the goals, at least one outcome measure
was included for each goal. While we consider output measures to be
significant, outcome measures provide a means of assessing how well OIG
is performing its mission and, thus, carry a greater significance.
Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
Answer. Yes. Our program managers were involved in the process of
developing the goals and measures and, therefore, are aware of the
difference between output and outcome measures.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
external customers.
Answer. We assess external customer satisfaction by providing a
survey request to our auditees upon completion of each audit and
compiling the results. This measure is not included in the Annual
Performance Plan because we use it as an analytical tool in our
detailed audit planning to identify specific areas where our attention
can be applied to improve customer service. We have found that the
overall measure of success remains high and is relatively consistent
from year to year, and, in our case, we do not believe the general
overall result of this survey would be a particularly useful measure.
In addition, as we develop our OIG Annual Plan each year, we request
input from USDA agency managers, State-level agencies, and members of
congressional committees as to the areas in which they believe OIG
should perform work. We also solicit information from our internal
staff on ways in which our work can be improved.
Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 2000
Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
Answer. The results of our fiscal year 1999 measurable goals were
used to revise targets for fiscal year 2001, as the fiscal year 2000
results will not be known until after September 30, 2000. The targets
were revised proportionately with the level of increase in the
projected budget activity and in consideration of the results achieved
in fiscal year 1999.
Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by
this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact
the change would have on the level of program performance and the
achievement of various goals?
Answer. Yes. Projected outputs would be adjusted in conformity with
the level of percentage of change in the final appropriated budget.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results?
Answer. We have such capability with some of the performance
measures through our CAPTAIN system, which provides current data on
audit activity; however, certain of the performance measures are
dependent on the completion of activities and cannot be assessed until
that time. For example, the timely issuance of financial statement
audit reports and related results cannot be assessed until the audit
reports are issued but can be monitored through the use of the audit
plan.
Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
Answer. The information can be obtained from the CAPTAIN system by
mid-level and above personnel based on password-protected access.
Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
performance-related data located throughout your various information
systems?
Answer. Yes. We have an extensive tracking system that is used to
manage resources, as well as the progress, status, and results of our
audit and investigative efforts.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget.
Answer. Many agencies have indicated that their present budget
account structure makes it difficult to link dollars to results in a
clear and meaningful way.
Question. Have you faced such difficulty?
Answer. We did not encounter such difficulty since our only budget
account is ``OIG Salaries and Expenses.''
Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
structure were modified?
Answer. There is no need to modify our budget account structure.
Question. If so, would you propose to modify it and why do you
believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
to this committee than the present structure?
Answer. Modification is not necessary.
Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. Modification is not necessary as we have full
accountability for program performance in the use of budgeted dollars
with the current structure.
Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
government functions; and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
perform these functions.
Could you comment on your agency's cost accounting expertise and
plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. Our agency has a professional level of cost accounting
expertise, and GPRA performance goals are already linked to our budget
process--from the initial strategic planning stage through execution of
operations.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to
have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting.
Answer. The clearly preferred methodology for such a system, as
stated in that standard, is the one known as ``Activity-Based
Costing,'' whereby the full cost is calculated for each of the
activities of an agency.
Question. What is the status of your agency's implementation of the
Managerial Cost Accounting requirement, and are you using Activity-
Based Costing?
Answer. OIG is using activity-based costing to manage its
resources.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
and depreciation?
Answer. Yes. OIG can provide full activity costs for internal
appropriated funds and, in coordination with Department efforts, can
identify overall costs, including indirect costs.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. Providing the full direct and indirect costs associated
with each program should provide a more complete picture of the
benefits of the program versus its overall costs.
Question. Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each
activity and result?
Answer. OIG can provide costs of each activity, which can then be
related to specific program performance goals and results.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with any
particular performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. Dollars allocated to the agency's performance goals are
direct appropriated funds only and include all internal OIG overhead
costs. However, they do not include indirect related costs such as
retirement paid by the Office of Personnel Management or depreciation.
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
the development of the agency's performance plan.
Answer. No regulatory reform measures have been put into place in
conjunction with the development of OIG's performance plan.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 performance plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievement?
Answer. No. External factors were not identified in the performance
plan. However, external factors were identified in the strategic plan.
OIG, as a part of its mission, must be prepared to respond rapidly to
unforeseen events that could have a significant impact on OIG
resources, which could affect workload and goal achievement.
Question. If so, what steps have you identified to prepare,
anticipate and plan for such influences?
Answer. We prepare our OIG Annual Plan to ensure that all
assignments are prioritized and that all OIG resources are fully and
efficiently utilized during the following fiscal year. We also
anticipate that there will be unforeseen external demands on OIG's
resources, and, by prioritizing our workload, we ensure that the most
significant and important work is addressed first.
Question. What impact might external factors have on your resource
estimates?
Answer. Unforeseeable external demands, such as responding to
emergency requests for OIG assistance, can deplete a portion of
resources necessary to complete our workload. Therefore, unforeseen
external factors that consume these resources reduce the amount of
planned assignments that OIG can complete in each fiscal year.
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication?
If so, does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or
duplication?
Answer. No overlapping functions or program duplication have been
identified.
Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
and if so, how?
Answer. Yes. This issue should be addressed within individual
agency plans, as well as between plans of other agencies, to ensure
that Federal funds are used in the most efficient and effective manner
to accomplish programmatic goals. By structuring strategic goals and
objectives and performance goals and measures to focus on the key
elements of an agency's mission, it should be possible to identify
instances where differing elements of an agency or Department are
performing similar functions and to note which element can perform that
function most effectively. This is not an easy task, but as performance
plans and reports are developed over a number of years, it should be
possible to determine which changes can be made to various processes to
improve efficiency and effectiveness and which have peaked. Based on
this accumulated data, it should be possible to address management
challenges and selectively eliminate duplication and overlapping
functions.
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
guide decision-making?
Will this use increase in the future and if so in what ways?
Answer. GPRA has been used to guide decision-making. GPRA is used
in planning ensuing years' assignments and in assessing satisfaction of
those programs impacted by current activity. In the future, as
performance plans and reports continue to be developed and a foundation
of data and experience is developed, the impact of GPRA on decision-
making will likely increase.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that:
To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature to
allow for these kinds of uses?
Answer. Our performance measures are sufficiently developed to
allow for these kinds of uses.
Question. Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making
estimates for certain activities or lack of data that might affect the
accuracy of resource estimates?
Answer. Such factors definitely have an impact, but the extent of
the impact is dependent on the types of performance measures applied.
For OIG, the resources consumed to conduct individual audits and
investigations, for example, may vary and exceed estimates; but over
the course of a year and the conduct of many audits and investigations,
the variations should cancel out, and, therefore, allow for reasonably
accurate estimates. We believe that we have sufficient experience to
capably estimate our resource needs for the activities depicted in our
performance plan.
Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements?
Specifically, are you requesting any relaxation of transfer or
reprogramming controls in return for specific accountability
commitments?
Answer. No, OIG is not requesting any waivers or relaxation of
administrative requirements.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 2000 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. We do not see any need for substantive revisions to the
strategic plan at this time. We routinely review the plan to determine
if revisions need to be made.
______
FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. All fiscal year 2001 performance goals are linked to the
mission and the strategic goals and objectives in the FNS Strategic
Plan 2000-2005 to which they contribute, as well to the Department-wide
goals, objectives, and management initiatives listed in the USDA
Strategic Plan Overview.
FNS resources (financial and staff-year) are linked to the
performance goals in two ways:
--First, total resources required to accomplish the performance goals
under each strategic objective are listed under that objective
in the performance plan. Over 99 percent of fiscal year 2001
resources requested for FNS are linked to the performance goals
in this way.
--Second, portions of requested fiscal year 2001 resources in each
FNS program account that contribute to each strategic goal are
identified in the plan. This latter division by strategic goal
includes the activities in support of each performance goal
under those strategic goals, as well the small remainder of
additional resources that contribute more generally to each
strategic goal.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link performance
measures to your budget activities? What difficulties, if any, did you
encounter, and what lessons did you learn?
Answer. FNS developed direct measures for the majority of its goals
and objectives. These performance measures were constructed in
collaboration with FNS staff and were shared with our stakeholders and
cooperators. Because performance goals are linked directly to the
agency's budget activities, their measures are, by definition, linked
to the budget activities as well. Among the most difficult problems the
agency encountered were developing valid measures for which data could
be obtained with reasonable cost and effort. FNS learned that, in
developing performance measures, it is necessary to specify measures
that both assess goal achievement and communicate results clearly.
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget? Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. FNS's performance plan links its performance measures and
goals directly to its budget. Each account has performance measures.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Answer. FNS's performance planning structure is different from our
budget structure. This is because our appropriation request focuses on
programs, while our performance planning is structured around outcomes.
Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. We do not plan to propose any changes at this time.
Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
described under that account structure?
Answer. We will not propose any changes at this time.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. FNS developed direct measures of programs' performance. A
work group, composed of staff representing all FNS divisions was
responsible for developing, revising, and finalizing the performance
measures. The measures were reviewed by cognizant program staff to
ascertain their appropriateness to performance goals.
Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
Answer. Where possible, FNS used extant data sources to minimize
data collection and verification costs.
Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. FNS's 1999 performance plan contains a significant number
of performance measures for which data will not be available for the
March 2000 Annual Report. Most of these data will be available later in
2000. This is because FNS relies substantially on the agency's existing
data collection schedules, which have due dates after March 2000.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
2000 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results? For each annual goal, indicate whether you
consider it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome
measure (``how well''); state the long-term (fiscal year 2003) goal or
objective from the Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is linked.
Answer. FNS recommends that, for tracking program results over
time, the subcommittee focus on the performance goals in the fiscal
year 2001 Annual Performance Plan, which is based on the FNS Strategic
Plan 2000-2005, a major revision of the agency's 1997-2002 strategic
plan. The new plan is designed to be simpler and more comprehensive,
consolidating the old plan's six program-focused goals and 20
objectives into two cross-cutting goals with five related objectives.
It better reflects the ways that Federal nutrition assistance programs
work together to achieve the agency's mission, and permits a more
complete allocation of the budget across the plan.
While some of the measures in this plan are clearly more important
than others, we do not consider the plan to be at a sufficient level of
refinement to make selection of a subset of these measures an
appropriate or useful overall performance assessment tool. FNS intends
to continue refining and improving these measures over time, in order
to achieve the ``critical few'' performance plan measures that focus
clearly on key program performance outputs and outcomes.
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. To the extent possible, FNS attempted to develop outcome
measures for the performance goals in its Annual Performance Plan. For
other goals, we developed output measures, to enable the agency to
track its progress in achieving its targets. These output measures
allow us to provide annual data on the program performance metrics used
by managers in making administrative decisions.
OMB guidance with regard to annual performance planning states
that, while ``[a]n annual plan should include outcome goals when their
achievement is scheduled for the fiscal year covered by the
plan...[m]easures of output can be the predominant goals and indicators
in an annual plan for several reasons:
--Outcome goals, other than those being accomplished at a continuing,
sustained level, may not be scheduled for achievement in the
fiscal year covered by the annual plan;
--An agency is likely to have more output goals than outcome goals;
and
--As the frequency and nature of performance data for outputs allows
for periodic assessment and intervention, managers often manage
to outputs.'' (OMB Circular A-11 (1999), Section 220.9, p.
493.)
To this list of reasons we would add a fourth: critical outcome
measures, including many of those in the new FNS strategic plan, are
meaningful only when assessed over a multi-year period, so that even
when annual data is available, it frequently does not provide a useful
explanation of program performance.
Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
Answer. FNS believes that our program managers understand the
difference between output and outcome measures. FNS conducted briefings
of all agency staff on GPRA requirements, including the difference
between output and outcome measures.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
external customers.
Answer. Customer satisfaction measures have not been incorporated
as key performance indicators in the Annual Performance Plan. However,
FNS has participated in the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI)
survey being conducted under the auspices of NPR. Data was collected
and the index calculated for the WIC Program in 1999 (the program
scored 83 out of 100 overall). FNS plans to expand its involvement to
include the Food Stamp Program and the National School Lunch Program in
2000.
Examples of external questions used in the Government-wide Customer
Satisfaction Survey for the WIC Program are given below:
Q. Before you entered the WIC Program, you probably knew something
about it. Now think back and remember your expectations for the overall
quality of the WIC Program. Please give me a rating on a 10-point scale
on which ``1'' means your expectations were ``not very high'' and
``10'' means they were ``very high.'' (The program scored 8.8 on this
question.)
Q. Was it difficult or easy to get into the WIC Program to get its
food benefit and support? Using a 10-point scale on which ``1'' means
``very difficult'' and ``10'' means ``very easy'' how difficult was it
for you to get into the WIC Program? (The program scored 8.7 on this
question.)
Question. How were the measurable goals of your 2000 Annual
Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
Answer. The vast majority of the resources included in FNS's budget
request are allocated for benefit dollars and State administrative
expenses and are driven by statutory requirements. The measures of
program participation used to develop those requests were not included
in the fiscal year 2000 Annual Performance Plan. For this and other
reasons, the fiscal year 2001 Performance Plan was extensively revised
from the fiscal year 2000 Performance Plan. The new plan, based on
FNS's revised strategic plan, does include these measures.
Measures of other activities, such as delivery of nutrition
education, link to specific allocations of resources in the fiscal year
2000 Performance Plan; FNS assessed the measures of performance
included in that plan in developing its fiscal year 2001 Performance
Plan, as well as the budget request to support it.
Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by
this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact
the change would have on the level of program performance and the
achievement of various goals?
Answer. In general, FNS would be able to estimate the impacts of
changes in the budget, but the precision of these estimates would
depend on the nature of the changes. In addition, some of the
performance measures in the plan (those related to benefit accuracy,
for example) are influenced significantly by the efforts of our program
partners and other external factors. Nonetheless, FNS intends the Plan
to serve as a useful framework to identify the impact of different
funding levels on key program performance issues.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results?
Answer. Program data related to participation, benefit levels, and
certain aspects of benefit delivery are collected and reported on a
monthly basis. These data are collected primarily in support of FNS's
responsibility to disburse, and oversee the use of, program funding,
rather than performance measurement. Therefore, not all areas of
performance are covered in this collection; for some measures,
information is developed on an annual or ad hoc basis.
FNS is constrained in its capability to collect the data required
for measuring and reporting program performance throughout the year by
two major factors. First, the Agency no longer has the ability to set
an operational and performance-focused studies and evaluation agenda;
funds for this purpose were transferred to another USDA agency, which
has to date focused on other areas of inquiry. Second, because the
programs operate primarily through partnerships with State and local
agencies, FNS depends on those agencies to collect and deliver
performance data in many areas. The agency is heavily constrained in
adding to State and local reporting burdens, beyond basic requirements
needed to ensure effective controls over Federal funding.
Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
Answer. Our program data are available to all program managers and
staff.
Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
performance-related data located throughout your various information
systems?
Answer. Program data is generally consolidated and reported,
verified, and consolidated in the National Data Bank, which is used to
prepare a single monthly report that is widely distributed in the
agency, and which is also available for individual queries by program
analysts and managers.
Question. Agencies have indicated that their present budget account
structure makes it difficult to link dollars to results in a clear and
meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty?
Answer. In our fiscal year 2001 Annual Performance Plan (APP), each
individual objective under the respective strategic plan goal is
associated with estimated dollar resources and associated staff years.
Although the FNS budget structure remains unchanged, the FNS Strategic
Plan was significantly changed (from six goals to two goals) to better
align with our current budget structure. The improved alignment
significantly improved our abilities to match budgeted resources with
the strategic plan objectives identified in the APP.
Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
structure were modified?
Answer. Since FNS only recently modified the FNS Strategic Plan to
better align with our budget structure, we would like the opportunity
to assess the results of the change relative to our current structure
before addressing the issue of a budget structure change.
Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
to this committee than the present structure?
Answer. We do not see a need to modify the present structure at
this time.
Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. We do not see a need to modify the present structure at
this time.
Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
government functions; and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
perform these functions. Could you comment on your agency's cost
accounting expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. FNS demonstrated our cost accounting expertise through the
planning and development of a Managerial Cost Accounting model which
was implemented and subsequently approved by the USDA Office of
Inspector General. Our model was designed to provide reliable and
timely information relative to the full cost of our programs.
With regard to linking GPRA to the budget process, the FNS annual
performance plans (for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001) are linked to
the FNS President's Budget for each respective fiscal year by means of
a crosswalk which aligns program and sub-program dollars and staff
years to the respective strategic plan goals. The crosswalk linking the
budget with the strategic plan goals is developed off-line--that is,
the crosswalk is not generated using the agency's official budget and
accounting systems.
Question. What is the status of your agency's implementation of the
Managerial Cost Accounting requirement, and are you using Activity-
Based Costing?
Answer. FNS implemented a cost accounting design in fiscal year
1998 using a model which follows the five standards as described in the
Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal
Government, Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards, Number
4: (1) accumulating and reporting costs, (2) establishing
responsibility segments, (3) determining full costs, (4) recognizing
the costs of goods and services received from other entities, and (5)
using appropriate costing methodologies. FNS is not currently using
activity-based costing and has no plans to do so.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
and depreciation?
Answer. FNS has the capability to show full cost (including
administration, employee benefits, and depreciation) at the sub-program
activity level, which we define in our model as ``level 1'' under each
responsibility segment. This means that within our accounting code
structure, FNS can report full cost at the ``school breakfast'' level
under Child Nutrition.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. The FNS Managerial Cost Accounting model shows a clear
relationship between the dollars spent and the activities accomplished,
as summarized at the ``level 1'' sub-program level. Alternatively, the
level at which we have implemented Managerial Cost Accounting would not
provide a meaningful relationship to the costs or results of activities
accomplished at any level below ``level 1''.
Question. Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each
activity and result?
Answer. For each GPRA activity and related results, the associated
per unit cost will have to be developed off-line; that is, outside of
the formal budget and accounting systems. This is principally because
the FNS annual performance plan goals generally would not have a one-
for-one relationship with any defined ``level 1'' sub-program.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with any
particular performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. Because we have implemented a Managerial Cost Accounting
model which is supported by our current accounting code structure and
since our goals are not directly aligned with our accounting code
structure, dollar costs associated with any particular performance goal
will be generated off-line (outside the formal budget and accounting
systems).
Overhead costs would not be assigned or allocated to a particular
annual performance plan goal. As indicated above, in our model,
indirect cost allocations are made at a level which is no lower than
the sub-program level (i.e., school breakfast program under Child
Nutrition). Since any annual performance plan goal would be a level
below sub-program (level 1), the ``full cost'' of that plan goal would,
if necessary, have to be done off-line and would be done on an
estimated basis.
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
the development of the agency's performance plan.
Answer. There are no such regulatory reform measures.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 performance plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievement?
Answer. Yes, some external factors are identified. The fiscal year
2000 Performance Plan refers to the FNS Strategic Plan 1997-2002, which
identifies a wide range of external factors that could influence goal
achievement.
Question. If so, what steps have you identified to prepare,
anticipate and plan for such influences?
Answer. The most significant external factors on the performance of
the nutrition assistance programs administered by FNS include the
overall status of the economy and the efforts of our State partners.
With regard to the former, the programs are structured to respond to
economic changes; our budget request projects program participation and
expenditures based on economic forecasts used by the government at
large. For the Food Stamp Program, benefit reserves are included in the
request to ensure that the program can respond rapidly to unanticipated
changes.
With regard to the efforts of State partners in, for example,
improving benefit accuracy, the Performance Plan and budget request
include earmarking of resources to support and provide incentives to
States to improve performance.
Question. What impact might external factors have on your resource
estimates?
Answer. FNS will require additional resources to cope with external
factors, such as those identified above, that are likely to impede the
agency' achievement of its goals.
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication?
Answer. FNS has identified no significant overlapping functions and
duplication. While FNS programs are designed to work together to
provide both a basic level of nutrition assistance, and targeted
supplemental benefits for those with special needs, these are not
duplicative functions.
Question. If so, does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or
duplication?
Answer. The Performance Plan does not identify any significant
overlap or duplication. Should agencies address management challenges
and potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA
plans, and if so, how?
Agencies should address potential duplications and overlapping
functions in their GPRA plans. The overlapping and duplication must be
carefully analyzed to determine the reasons for their existence and
whether elimination would result in savings and improved program
efficiency and effectiveness.
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
guide decision making?
Answer. FNS is using its Strategic and Annual Performance Plans as
an integral part of its Leadership 2000 Initiative, which is designed
to improve agency management, operations, and effectiveness.
Question. Will this use increase in the future and if so in what
ways?
Answer. Yes. As agency management and staff get more experience
with GPRA, they will be able to integrate it even more into the
agency's day-to-day operations.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that: To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
to allow for these kinds of uses?
Answer. FNS believes that additional time may be needed for some of
the performance measures to mature. For those measures for which data
are available, we believe that they are sufficiently mature to
influence budget decisions.
Question. Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making
estimates for certain activities or lack of data, that might effect the
accuracy of resource estimates?
Answer. In a number of areas, FNS hopes to extensively refine its
performance measures, particularly with regard to measures of
performance regarding benefit accuracy, fraud reduction, and
administrative efficiency. More extensive analysis of the factors that
contribute to good performance in these areas could allow the agency to
develop better measures and more reliable estimates of resources needed
for specific performance levels. Notably, FNS is hampered in this area
by a lack of study and evaluation funding that could permit the agency
to conduct such analyses.
Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements? Specifically, are you requesting any
relaxation of transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
accountability commitments?
Answer. At this time we are not requesting any waivers.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 2000 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued September 30, 1997?
Answer. In 1999, FNS identified the need for a major revision of
the agency's 1997-2002 strategic plan. A revised plan, FNS Strategic
Plan 2000-2005, was released in January, 2000. The new plan is designed
to be simpler and more comprehensive, consolidating the old plan's six
program-focused goals and 20 objectives into two cross-cutting goals
with five related objectives. It better reflects the ways that Federal
nutrition assistance programs work together to achieve the agency's
mission, and permits a more complete allocation of the budget across
the plan.
FNS engaged in an extensive stakeholder input process in revising
the plan, including regional and National stakeholder meetings,
discussions with FNS employees, and a website offering information on
the proposed revision and soliciting comments. FNS received a large
volume of input; most was supportive of the revised plan structure,
though some changes were suggested and made. The agency intends to use
the revised plan, and related performance plans, to work with our
program partners toward shared goals.
______
RURAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICE
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. Rural Development established one strategic plan which
supports the three agencies constituting the mission area. The Rural
Development Strategic Plan contains a mission statement which
encompasses the role of the entire mission area. This statement is
cited in the Purpose Statement of the budget request. The strategic
plan also contains three Goals, one for each agency, and four broad
Management Initiatives which support the entire mission area. By having
a Goal for each agency, alignment with the existing budget structure,
which is agency and program based, is achieved.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities?
Answer. For loan and grant programs the performance goals and
indicators in the Annual Performance Plan are tied directly to the
level of funding requested for each program.
Question. What difficulties, if any, did you encounter, and what
lessons did you learn?
Answer. The primary problem we have encountered is establishing
performance measures for new programs when we have no historical data
on which to base future performance. Also, new programs may require
several years to become fully functional, which results in unused
funding. Since the performance target was based upon full usage of
funding, the target performance cannot be met regardless of our best
efforts.
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget?
Answer. The performance goals in the mission area Annual
Performance Plan, which align with the objectives in the strategic
plan, are supported by one or more quantified performance indicators to
be achieved during the fiscal year. The performance goals are linked to
the President's budget request at the agency level and for each major
category of programs. For example, funding requested for the Rural
Business-Cooperative Service is linked at the total agency level and
then linked again for business and industry programs and cooperative
development programs. The business and industry programs consist of
several accounts and the plan does not provide separate performance
measures for each account. However the contribution of the account to
the larger goal is often indicated.
Question. Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. We do not have performance measures for each account. With
over 50 accounts in the Rural Development budget, a plan with
performance measures for each account would cause the plan to be too
large and too segmented to be useful.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Answer. The performance planning structure is based upon the eight
basic programs of the mission area. These are business and industry
programs; cooperative programs; single family housing; rural rental
housing; community development programs; water and waste programs;
telecommunication programs; and electric program, rather than the
account and activity structure of the budget.
Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. No, we do not plan to propose changes for fiscal year 2001.
Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
described under that account structure?
Answer. No, we will not propose changes to the program activities
described under that account structure.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. The performance goals and indicators were selected by the
agency administrators in consultation with their program managers.
Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
Answer. Since we have limited funds for systems development, the
decision was made to rely on existing data sources, or those under
development for other purposes, when developing performance goals. The
data comes from a variety of sources. Much of it comes from the various
loan accounting systems which contain edit checks and are audited
annually. The data from these systems are considered reliable and
valid. Other data is provided by the field staff and, while its
validity cannot be verified, it is considered adequate for the purposes
it is being used.
Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. All of the data included in the performance report is
considered final. The performance plan does includes a few performance
indicators, primarily in support of the rural rental housing program,
which are under development and were not available for the first
report. The indicators under development primarily relate to rent
overburden of the tenants living in the rural rental housing projects.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
2000 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results? For each key annual goal, indicate whether
you consider it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome
measure (``how well). State the long-term (fiscal year 2003), general
goal and objective from the agency strategic Plan to which the annual
goal is linked.
Answer. We recommend the subcommittee track all of the key
performance goals from the Annual Performance Plan. These are:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long-term general
goal in the
Key performance goal Output or Outcome strategic plan
supporting the key
performance goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Business-Cooperative
Service:
Create or save jobs in rural Outcome........... The following
areas. general goal
supports all of
the key
performance
goals:
Assist marketing networks Outcome........... Rural Development
and cooperative will improve the
partnerships in the quality of life
expansion of business in rural America
outlets. by encouraging
the establishment
and growth of
rural businesses
and cooperatives.
Direct program resources to Outcome........... ..................
those rural communities and
customers with the greatest
need.
Manage the B&I portfolio Outcome...........
effectively to minimize the
delinquency rate.
Rural Housing Service:
Improve the quality of life Outcome........... The following
of residents of rural general goal
communities by providing supports all of
access to credit for the key
decent, safe, and sanitary performance
housing. goals:
Improve the quality of life Outcome........... Rural Development
for the residents of rural will improve the
communities by providing quality of life
access to decent, safe, of rural
sanitary, and affordable residents by
rental housing. providing access
to technical
assistance,
capital, and
credit for
quality housing
and modern,
essential
community
facilities.
Improve the quality of life Outcome...........
for rural residents by
providing new or improved
essential community
facilities.
Maximize the leveraging of Outcome...........
loan funds to increase the
number of rural residents
assisted by Rural
Development programs.
Direct resources to those Outcome...........
communities and customers
with the greatest need.
Provide effective Outcome...........
supervision to minimize
delinquencies and future
losses.
Rural Utilities Service:
Provide rural residents with Outcome........... The following
modern, affordable water general goal
and waste services. supports all of
the key
performance
goals:
Provide modern, affordable Outcome........... Rural Development
telecommunications services will improve the
to rural communities. quality of life
of rural
residents by
promoting and
providing access
to capital and
credit for the
development and
delivery of
modern affordable
utility services.
Provide distance learning Outcome...........
and telemedicine services,
utilizing
telecommunications
technologies, to rural
communities.
Provide modern, affordable Outcome...........
electric service to rural
residents and communities.
Direct program resources to Outcome...........
those communities with the
greatest need.
Maximize the leveraging of Outcome...........
loan funds to increase the
number of rural residents
assisted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
While all of the goals are considered to be outcomes, most of them
are measured with a variety of performance indicators, many of which
are outputs.
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. Throughout the process of implementing GPRA, we have
encourage staff to think about the impact of the programs and how that
impact, or outcome, could be quantified. Information on the impact of
our loan and grant programs on the families, communities and businesses
recipients is not available and would be costly to obtain. As an
alternative we have elected to establish unquantified performance
goals, which are written from an outcome perspective, and measured with
several quantified performance indicators, most of which are output
oriented.
Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
Answer. Yes, program managers understand the difference.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
external customers.
Answer. Our customer service activities in the Performance Plan are
focused on conducting customer satisfaction surveys for most of the
major program areas. We have no indicators related to internal
customers. Limited staff and financial resources have impaired our
ability to meet our targets in these areas. The Cooperative Development
program has conducted annual surveys of its customers for a number of
years and it has a target for the customer's rating of the quality of
the technical assistance provided. The Service Center Modernization
Initiative (SCMI) includes RHS' single family housing borrowers in its
surveying activities. The SCMI annual performance plan includes targets
related to customer satisfaction by those customers using the field
service centers. In addition, RHS is interested in determining if its
customers were attaining favorable outcomes through their participation
in the agency's programs. RHS contracted with USDA's Economic Research
Service (ERS) to survey the Section 502 direct loan borrowers and the
Section 515 multi-family housing tenants to determine whether their
participation in these programs had improved their quality of life. ERS
released its report on Section 502 borrowers last December under the
title ``Meeting the Housing Needs of Rural Residents: Results of the
1998 Survey of USDA's Single Family Direct Loan Housing Program.'' This
report is available electronically at http://www.econ.ag.gov/Prodsrvs/
rept-rur.htm.
The report shows that 90 percent of the borrowers surveyed said the
quality of their current home was better than that of their previous
home; 77 percent rate their new neighborhood as 8, 9, or 10 on a scale
of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best; and 75 percent rate the schools in
their neighborhood as good or very good. These results indicate that
participation in the Section 502 direct loan program has helped
borrowers change their lives for the better.
Once we obtain the results of the Multi-Family Housing survey, we
will share them with you. As you know, reports such as these take years
to develop and are expensive. However, as resources are available, we
will continue to pursue research on how well RHS programs accomplish
our central mission of improving the quality of life of rural
Americans.
Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 2000
Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
Answer. Funding requests for Rural Development programs are based
on many factors, especially our customer's needs. The fiscal year 2000
Annual Performance Plan did not have a major impact on the development
of the fiscal year 2001 budget request.
Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by
this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact
the change would have on the level of program performance and the
achievement of various goals?
Answer. Since most of the performance measures are directly related
to the amount of funds available, the impact on a performance measure
can be determined if the committee is considering a change in a budget
number.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results?
Answer. Data utilized by Rural Development comes from a variety of
sources. Much of it comes from the program loan accounting systems and
this information is basically available on a regular basis with routine
reports printed on a monthly or quarterly basis. Some of the data comes
from the Rural Communities Facilities Tracking System (RCFTS). This
system is updated by the field offices and, while it is always
available, it is not always current. Some of the data comes from
surveys of field offices and this information is only available once a
year.
Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
Answer. This information is available is available to all levels of
program managers.
Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
performance-related data located throughout your various information
systems?
Answer. Trained program staff is able to query most of the systems
to develop ad-hoc reports. In order to make access easier, and to make
more information available, Rural Development is developing a data
warehouse which will include not only program data but also data from
outside sources, such as the Bureau of Census.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget. Many agencies have indicated that their
present budget account structure makes it difficult to link dollars to
results in a clear and meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty?
Answer. By linking performance goals and indicators at the agency
and broadest program level only, we have avoided this difficulty. If we
attempted to develop performance measures for each of our over 50
program accounts, the task would be monumental and the plan too large
to be useful.
Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
structure were modified?
Answer. No. We believe the linkage, as we presently present it, is
appropriate and easy for someone unfamiliar with Rural Development's
programs to understand.
Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
to this committee than the present structure?
Answer. We propose no modification. .
Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. We do not believe any modification would strengthen
accountability.
Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
government functions, and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
perform these functions. Could you comment on your agency's cost
accounting expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. Rural Development's accounting systems do not currently
support cost accounting. Enhancing the systems to support cost
accounting will require the investment of substantial resources.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies, are required to
have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting. The clearly preferred
methodology for such a system, as stated in that standard, is the one
known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby the full cost is
calculated for each of the activities of an agency. What is the status
of your agency's implementation of the Managerial Cost Accounting
requirement, and are you using Activity-Based Costing?
Answer. Rural Development will not implement a cost accounting
system in the near future. Resources available to enhance the
accounting systems are either being directed to improving their ability
to account for program funds or to the implementation of the
Department's Foundation Financial Information System (FFIS). Rural
Development is scheduled to implement FFIS effective October 1, 2000.
After FFIS is implemented, Rural Development will work with Department
representatives in the development of a plan for obtaining and
integrating the data needed for an activity-based cost accounting
system.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
and depreciation?
Answer. It is unclear at this time what costs will be included in
the cost accounting system.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. The dollars spent on a program and the cost of activities
related to a program would be apparent with a cost accounting system.
The results of those activities would then be related to this data.
Question. Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each
activity and result?
Answer. It is unclear at this time how the cost of activities could
be displayed and how those costs would be tied to results.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with any
particular performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. The Annual Performance Plan contains salary and expense
costs at the mission area level. Costs are not allocated to the
individual goals. The costs in the Plan do include all overhead costs.
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
the development of the agency's performance plan.
Answer. Several regulatory changes have occurred to make the
programs easier for our customers to use, to encourage leveraging, to
make it easier for the neediest customers and communities to access our
programs, and to strengthen oversight of the programs with the goal of
diminishing future delinquencies and losses. Over the past several
years, we sought to reduce the regulatory burden while also
implementing handbooks that enable us to more rapidly react to changes,
make it easier for staff to deliver the programs to the customers, and
provide the guidance needed to operate and manage the programs. In
conjunction with this process, we have implemented a number of improved
automated systems to help staff accomplish their work more effectively
and efficiently. Work on these improvements continues.
The Intermediary Relending Program regulation were revised in
August 1998. Some of the significant changes to these regulations
included:
--State Offices are authorized to accept and process applications
without the application having to go through the National
Office.
--The contents of a complete application and work plan are revised to
eliminate some unnecessary items; provide more detail on what
should be covered regarding re-lending plans; add
certifications regarding debarment, Federal debt collection
policies, and lobbying; provide goals, strategies, and
anticipated outcomes; provide information on technical
assistance available to ultimate recipients; and provide for
streamlined applications for subsequent loans.
--The priority scoring system is revised by reducing the number of
points for other funds, adjusting the threshold for points
based on service area income compared to the poverty line,
adding a category of points based on service area income
compared to statewide income levels, adding a category of
points for service to under-represented groups, and providing
additional guidance regarding justification for Administrative
points.
The loan origination and servicing systems, which support the
Single Family Housing direct programs, have been automated which
increases the agency's ability to process and service loans. Through
changes in the manner in which payment assistance is provided, the cost
of providing families with opportunities for homeownership provided a
40 percent savings to the taxpayer and reduced paper work by over 75
percent.
We have implemented a series of Congressionally mandated reforms to
the Section 515 program. We continued the task of reinventing the
Section 515 and the Section 514/516 Farm Labor Housing programs.
Through these changes, we eliminated the occupancy surcharge and are
making equity loans available for all pre-1989 housing complexes. New
processes have been developed for prioritizing funding assistance to
the neediest communities, as defined by ruralness, incidence of
substandard housing, and incidence of rent overburden. We implemented
provisions to ensure that developers receive no more than a reasonable
profit and that transfers of property are in the best interest of the
government. In addition, we provided for penalizing property managers
for equity skimming. Our streamlining efforts have reduced regulatory
burden, simplified agency management and servicing responsibilities,
and streamlined procedures for origination and prepayment of loans.
Oversight and management of the Multi Family Housing program has
been an on-going concern. We have reinvented the approach to overseeing
management and compliance for the Multi Family Housing programs. To
address management inefficiencies and to combat fraud, waste, and
abuse, we have undertaken a continuing process of regulatory reforms.
As a result of these reforms, debarment activity in the Section 515
program has significantly increased as we replace borrowers and
management companies unable to meet their responsibilities. We have
developed a loan classification system to quickly identify problem
loans at a very early stage before there are serious loan losses or
health and safety concerns for the tenants. The classification system
identifies maintenance deficiencies, financial deficiencies, high
operating costs and deficient reserve accounts, as well as other
management indicators.
During fiscal year 1999, the regulations governing the Distance
Learning and Telemedicine loan and grant programs were completely
rewritten. These revisions are now in effect and more clearly delineate
the application requirements for the loan, grant, and combination loan
and grant programs. A new combination loan and grant program was
introduced which pairs up loans with grants on a 10 to 1 ration. That
is, for every $10 in loan applications, the applicant would receive an
additional $1 in grant funds. The purposes for which loan funds can be
utilized was also broadened and a new expedited application review
process was implemented.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 performance plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievement?
Answer. The Annual Performance Plan identifies two key external
factors that can influence goal achievement--macroeconomic influences
and reductions in funding.
Question. If so, what steps have you identified to prepare,
anticipate and plan for such influences?
Answer. Should the economy start to weaken, we will need to
increase loan servicing activities to help those borrowers who are
impacted and to limit future losses to the Government. The availability
of adequately trained staff to provide the servicing will be critical
to our success.
Question. What impact might external factors have on your resource
estimates?
Answer. Higher interest rates and higher unemployment will limit
our ability to assist the weakest applicants and is likely to increase
delinquencies within our portfolio. Higher interest rates will also
reduce our ability to leverage loans, putting greater pressure on
program funds. The impact will be a higher subsidy cost for the direct
programs.
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication?
Answer. We have not identified significant overlapping functions or
program duplication through the strategic planning process. Most
programs which may appear to be duplicates of another program are
actually designed for a different clientele. There is always the need
for agencies to coordinate on related activities.
Question. If so, does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or
duplication?
Answer. The Plan identifies those Federal agencies which mission
area staff work closely with in the delivery of our programs.
Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
and if so, how?
Answer. Agencies should address management challenges and potential
duplication and overlapping functions, to the extent they are within
the agency's control, if they impact achievement of the performance
goal. These items can be addressed in the means and strategies portion
of the annual plan.
Question. To what extent, has GPRA been used by agency leadership
to guide decision making?
Answer. During the strategic planning phase of the implementation
of GPRA, senior management determined, with support from our
stakeholders, that targeting of financial resources to the neediest
individuals and communities and leveraging of our resources with other
sources of technical assistance or credit would be priorities. These
priorities are reflected in the objectives in the strategic plan and in
the performance goals and indicators in the Annual Performance Plan for
all of the programs. To ensure achievement of these priorities the
Agency Administrators have established performance goals for each Rural
Development State Office which are tied to the State Director's
performance standards.
Question. Will this use increase in the future and if so in what
ways?
Answer. As long as the strategic plan reflects the priorities of
senior management, GPRA will help agency leadership make the decisions
needed to guide the agency. The extent to which a manager uses the
strategic planning in their management process varies widely depending
upon the style of the manager.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that: To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
to allow for these kinds of uses?
Answer. Most of the performance measures are sufficiently mature
for use in determining program performance. However, there are
difficulties with some databases and systems that impact the quality of
the data. For example:
--We are having problems with the reconciliation of data in the Rural
Communities Facilities Tracking System (RCFTS) with the same
data in the Guaranteed Loan Accounting System (GLAS) and the
Program Loan Accounting System (PLAS). There is no automated
single point-of-entry of duplicate data into GLAS/PLAS and
RCFTS. Duplicate data has to be manually input into each
systems by the field staff. This does not always happen and the
result is inaccurate data. We are, through a GSA FEDSIM
contract, attempting to develop a reconciliation process that
identifies discrepancies in like-data between the systems.
For some of our direct loan programs we recently replaced our old
servicing system with a new modern system. However, some of the
historical information typically needed to track loan history was never
centralized in the old system. We are presently building histories in
the new system that will serve as useful comparison measures for trends
in the future but accumulating the historical data needed will take
several years.
In addition, there are other factors to consider in using these
measures to compare actual performance with targeted performance. For
example, the number of housing units we can finance is based on the
average cost of each unit. Factors such as whether the unit is newly
constructed or whether the house is in a remote or difficult-to-build
area could influence the average loan amount since both of these
situations generally increase the cost of construction. Additionally,
the cyclical nature of the housing market can influence performance. An
example is that rising interest rates or rising home prices may have a
negative influence on the ability of low- and moderate-income families
achieving homeownership.
For our Community Facilities programs, it is difficult to
accurately predict the number and type of projects financed because of
the vast number of different uses for this program. Projects can range
from building a multi-million dollar hospital to purchasing a $30,000
fire truck.
Another factor that has a great deal of influence on our
performance level is leveraging. As we work with more and more lenders,
we are gaining experience with leveraging so that hopefully we can make
better estimates of leveraging activity expected n the future, however
this activity may also be sensitive to interest rates.
Question. Are there any factors such as inexperience in making
estimates for certain activities or lack of data that might affect the
accuracy of resource estimates?
Answer. Data used in the performance measures come from a variety
of sources. The number of jobs created or saved is based upon
information from the borrower for the business programs and through the
use of job multipliers for many of the other programs. Estimating the
number of jobs created through the Intermediate Relending Program (IRP)
has been especially difficult. Impacts of IRP over the life of the loan
(30 years) with regard to job retention/creation has been an estimate
based on a study conducted several years ago by a private consultant.
Currently, Agency accounting and management systems do not track actual
job retention/creation as a result of re-lending to ultimate recipients
under the program. The Agency has entered into a Cooperative Agreement
with the Virginia Institute of Technology to develop a pilot database
that tracks actual performance of ultimate recipient loans including
job retention/creation.
Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements?
Answer. No, we are not requesting any waivers.
Question. Specifically, are you requesting any relaxation of
transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
accountability commitments?
Answer. No, we are not.
Question. Based an your fiscal year 2000 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. The strategic plan currently reflects the priority of
senior management and substantive revisions are not needed. The
strategic plan could be updated to be more reflective of current
initiatives within the Department.
______
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. Our strategic plan provides a statement of the fundamental
mission of the agency and lays out long-term goals for achieving that
mission, including strategies to reach identified multi-year
performance targets. It serves as a blueprint for agency budget
formulation, and serves as a foundation for resource allocation,
performance planning, business planning, and performance measurement.
Performance planning provides the link between the agency mission
and strategic plan goals and the tasks performed by agency personnel on
a day-to-day basis. The process converts the multiyear strategic plan
goals into measurable annual goals and priorities. The annual
Performance Plan contains specific performance measures to be monitored
through the year that either directly, or as surrogates, represent each
of the strategic objectives. The specific linkages between the annual
goals and the Strategic Plan targets are explained in the Annual
Performance Plan.
The performance plan also guides the allocation of staff time and
resources. The agency budget request is based on measurable output and
outcome goals defined in the agency performance plan. The establishment
of measurable performance goals is the first step in the annual budget
formulation process. The performance plan directly links the goals to
the programs through which the agency receives funds. This information
is contained in tables in the Performance Plan. The annual performance
plan also describes how the funds the agency receives are used to
achieve the strategic goals.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities? What difficulties, if any,
did you encounter, and what lessons did you learn?
Answer. The process drew on the technical and program experience of
a team of headquarters and regional staff. This team drew on a wider
circle of state and field level employees and national program
managers. The team studied each of the performance goals for 2002 that
are established in the strategic plan and identified program activities
that contribute to meeting the long-term goal. The team determined
which activities were most clearly outcome-related and recommended
those to be used as performance measures. The main problem that we
encountered was data availability to establish baselines for some
natural resources conditions. For some natural resource objectives,
such as water quality, there are not currently reliable annual data
sources to support an annual performance goal stated in terms of
resource condition, that is, it is not possible to set an annual goal
for number of stream miles improved and then reliably report annual
performance.
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget? Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. The agency's Performance Plan includes several tables that
map the linkage between the performance measures and the budget. Tables
2 through 5 of the document show the relationships between the
objectives in the strategic plan and the long-term and annual
performance measures. Tables 6a and 7 then show the relationship
between programs and strategic objectives. Tables 9 and 10 present
information, for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, on the amount
of funds from each budget activity that support each objective.
The performance plan includes measures that can be used as measures
for each program. The measures, however, are designed to fit our larger
programs. Some, but not all activities of smaller programs are covered
by the current set of measures. For example, activities of the RC&D
program that directly relate to resource conservation are covered by
performance measures in the plan. RC&D activities that relates to
community development are not.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Answer. Our budget provides funds through a structure of 12
accounts and activities. The authorizing legislation of each account
defines the resource concerns that the program is intended to address.
Some programs have a very narrow focus and address a limited range of
resource concerns. Others are broader. The programs are delivered
through a single workforce to customers who may participate in several
programs. We are using the performance planning process as a means to
integrate management of our program activities. Our performance
planning structure, therefore, is natural-resource driven and very
closely follows the structure of the outcome-related objectives in our
strategic plan. All of the objectives in the strategic plan are
supported by multiple programs. We have very few single-program
performance measures in our performance plan.
Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. No, we do not anticipate proposing changes to our account
structure for fiscal year 2001.
Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
described under that account structure?
Answer. At present, we are not proposing changes to the program
activities. We are evaluating a possible redefinition of the
Conservation Technical Assistance account to focus on reporting the
outcomes of program actions. This redefinition should enable us to
improve the linkage to program results as well as improve allocation of
costs to the outcomes. It will not involve any fundamental change in
the nature of the program.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. A team that included representation of all regions
identified possible measures and recommended those that most closely
related to the long-term goals established in the strategic plan. We
selected predominantly measures for which we are able to collect data
or for which data was already being collected through existing efforts.
Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, we implemented a new performance
reporting system designed to minimize field staff time required for
reporting and to provide the essential data needed by agency leadership
to make management decisions and respond to questions from the
Administration and Congress in a timely fashion. The Performance and
Results Measurement System provides a method for every office to report
progress on mission-critical goals using a nationally consistent set of
defined measures. The system is Web-based and user-friendly; it reduces
the time staff must spend entering data and includes automated quality
checks to improve the accuracy and consistency of the data. Tests
conducted in the early stages of implementation indicated that the
system will reduce the staff time required to enter data into the
system by 195 staff years annually. These reductions result from the
use of improved information technology and from focusing performance
reporting on a set of clearly defined measures linked to agency
outcomes and will allow our staff to use this time providing additional
services instead of reporting past activities.
Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. Our performance report for fiscal year 1999 includes data
for all measures. For most measures, the reported performance will be
based on expansion of data from a sample of offices. The sample was
selected to provide a reliable picture of agency performance at the
national level. We do, however, intend to continue refining measures
over the next several years. We are currently looking very closely at
our annual performance measures as we update our strategic plan. As we
revise the strategic plan to address the changing needs of our
customers and new guidance from the Administration, changes will also
be needed in the annual performance measures that track progress toward
strategic goals. This means that there likely will be one or more
measures in the plan for any given year for which we may not have
reliable baseline data or consistent current-year data.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
2000 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results?
Answer. The annual performance indicators that support our
strategic goal for a healthy land are key measures that the committee
can use to track the effectiveness of our combined programs. These
indicators include acres of cropland and grazing land managed
sustainably (``resource management systems''), acres of cropland
protected against excessive erosion, acres of land managed to minimize
offsite delivery of nutrients and pesticides, number of waste
management systems installed to minimize risk of problems associated
with animal wastes; acres of wetlands restored or enhanced, and acres
on land where practices have been applied to enhance habitat for
wildlife. In addition, the indicator for number of minority customers
served is a useful indicator of the agency's commitment to providing
services on a non-discriminatory basis to all customers.
Question. For each key annual goal, indicate whether you consider
it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measure(``how
well'').
Answer. Measures supporting the goal of a healthy land are all
outcome-related measures. They measure ``conservation on the land'' as
a result of action and investment of time and money by the target
audience--private land managers--rather than internal processes and
tasks completed by agency personnel. These intermediate outcome
measures provide a more reliable picture of annual performance than
would end outcome measures based on the impacts that the systems and
practices have on the land. In many cases, the benefits of applying
conservation cannot be documented in the environment until several
years after the action is completed. In other cases, changes related to
weather or market conditions can mask or intensify the impacts of
conservation progress. The indicator for number of minority customers
served is an output measure of a key dimension of the quality of
services provided. The measures for information products, such as
number of surveys digitized, are outputs.
Question. State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and
objective from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is
linked.
Answer. All outcome-related goals for resource condition and health
support our Goal 1: A healthy and productive land that sustains food
and fiber production, sustains functioning watersheds and natural
systems, enhances the environment, and improves urban and rural
landscapes. The objectives for this general goal are:
--Healthy and productive cropland sustaining U.S. agriculture and the
environment.
--Healthy and productive grazing land sustaining U.S. agriculture and
the environment.
--Healthy watersheds providing clean and abundant water supplies for
people and the environment.
--Healthy and productive wetlands sustaining watersheds and wildlife.
--High quality habitat on private land supporting the Nation's
wildlife heritage.
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. We identified outcome goals and objectives in our strategic
plan and supported them with quantified outcome-related targets. The
criterion for establishment of a performance goal was that the goal
must be stated in terms of an outcome-related measure. The annual
performance measures for resource condition, therefore, are all at
least intermediate outcomes that measure improvements in natural
resource management implemented by resources managers with NRCS
assistance. We included few measures of internal processes in our
performance plan, and those few apply to civil rights in program
delivery or to support functions, such as resources inventory, for
which output measures are more meaningful than end outcomes.
Question. Do your believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcomes)?
Answer. Yes, most NRCS managers at all levels have a general
understanding of the difference between outputs and outcomes. We are a
field agency in which most of our employees are front line staff
providing services directly to the public. Most managers have first-
hand knowledge of the results our customers want and can distinguish
between the activities that employees perform and the changes on the
land that result from that assistance to land users.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
external customers.
Answer. The Natural Resources Conservation Service is conducting
several activities in customer satisfaction measurement for fiscal year
2000 and fiscal year 2001. In 1998 and 1999, NRCS participated in the
development of the USDA Service Center Customer Card. This card was
piloted in six states and the results of the pilot are presently being
evaluated.
In September of 1999, NRCS established a Chief's Feedback System to
receive feedback from both internal and external customers. The system
is user-friendly and Web-based. Incoming messages and responses are
posted in question and answer format. Other customer feedback
activities include the Conservation Summit and various Conservation
forums that have taken place in 1999 and 2000 to solicit feedback from
our external customers throughout the country.
NRCS is designing a plan to establish a national customer
satisfaction measurement system. Due to funding shortages, the design
and implementation of this system will not be fully accomplished in
fiscal year 2000. The goal of the system is to establish a series of
on-going customer satisfaction measures that, through internal and
external customer feedback, will be used to guide NRCS programs and
activities.
Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 2000
annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
Answer. In 1998, state conservationists provided estimates of the
level of performance that could be expected for a set of performance
measures, assuming level buying power over the following years. In
early calendar 1999, state conservationists developed revised
projections of performance for these outcome-related measures for
several budget scenarios. They also conducted a field-level workload
analysis to better define the level of outputs that could be produced
by the current workforce. Agency leadership identified actions,
including program strategies, and the funding required to support the
strategies, to achieve alternative goals developed in response to input
from stakeholders.
Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by
this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact
the change would have on the level of program performance and the
achievement of various goals?
Answer. If the committee changes a proposed number, we will be able
to tell you the eventual impact on the level of program performance in
terms of program-specific outputs and the outcome goal most closely
related to the program purpose. We could, for example, estimate with
considerable accuracy the change in extent of acreage that could be
placed under easement in the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)
corresponding to a change in the WRP budget. Acreage enrolled in the
program, however, is not the annual performance measure in our
performance plan; acreage on which practices have actually been applied
is the measure. The change in funding would likely have a lesser effect
on the acres of wetlands created or restored in fiscal year 2001 than
on the acreage in the following 2 or 3 years. This is because securing
easements and applying restoration practices is generally a multi-year
process. We do not yet have all of the information needed to precisely
project the change that a funding change would have on such a outcome-
related measure in the initial year. Nor are we yet able to trace all
of the effects that a change in funding aimed at one goal would have on
related goals.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results?
Answer. The new Performance and Results Measurement System that we
implemented in fiscal year 1999 gives us the capability to monitor
progress on a daily basis. Performance information from the field is
entered in the Performance and Results Measurement System when the
system or measure is completed. The standard reports available on the
system website are updated daily at 2:00 am EST. Therefore, raw data is
available on a real-time basis.
Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
Answer. A number of standard reports are available on the PRMS
homepage, which is http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/prms. These reports
currently provide data at the national, state, or county level. The
standard reports are accessible to all NRCS employees and to the
general public. They include both measures in the agency performance
plan and additional reporting items needed by agency managers. A
standard report now under development will provide a snapshot of
current status of activities on all measures in the agency performance
plan.
Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
performance-related data located throughout your various information
systems?
Answer. We are developing an integrated accountability system that
will provide a single point of access to performance-related
information. The home page, which will be unveiled in the next few
weeks, will allow access to the performance information in PRMS,
estimates of the resource needs and associated workload in each county
as projected by the National Partnership Workload Analysis, and
information on the resource concerns and conservation partnership
available to address those concerns. In addition, selected program
management data will be automatically loaded into the integrated site
on a quarterly basis. A security system has been designed to enable
managers at all levels to have access to the data they need to manage
their responsibilities, permit the general public access to appropriate
levels of information, protect the integrity of the database, and
ensure restricted access to confidential data.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget. Many agencies have indicated that their
present budget account structure makes it difficult to link dollars to
results in a clear and meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty?
Answer. The difficulty we face in linking dollars to results in a
meaningful way stems more from the nature of the results we seek to
achieve than from our budget structure. Because natural resources are
parts of an interrelated system, program activities that are undertaken
primarily to achieve a specific goal will have effects on other
components of the system. In our performance plan, we have attempted to
show the linkage between programs and the primary performance goal(s)
the funds support. However, the goal for any resource objective is
based on the assumption that the funds requested to meet other
objectives will also be available.
Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
structure were modified? If so, how would you propose to modify it and
why do you believe such modification would be more useful both to your
agency and to this committee than the present structure?
Answer. We have not identified changes in our budget structure that
would make the linkages clearer. In the Performance and Results
Measurement System, accomplishments on the performance measures is
linked to the program or programs involved. In the time and attendance
reporting system, time is reported by program and major activity. We
are analyzing the initial year data from these systems to identify
modifications in the reporting systems that would enable us to tie
activities to dollars more precisely. As part of the strategic planning
process, we are considering alternatives for stating strategic goals
and objectives in an effort to design a framework that permits closer
linkages between costs, outputs, and outcomes.
Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. Our new time and attendance reporting system makes
available improved data on how employees spend their time. We believe
that this data will provide the basis for accountability for program
performance without requiring modification of the budget structure.
Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
government functions; and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
perform these functions. Could you comment on your agency's cost
accounting expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. Cost accounting within NRCS is not a new concept. As early
as the 1970s the agency had a manual process in place that required
employees to record time by program supported. Due to the staff time
required for manual recording, however, the agency went to the cost
offset type of process currently in use. The TCAS system of time and
attendance reporting, implemented in 1998, will provide the information
to ensure that the offset process supports fund accountability.
Although NRCS accounting resources are very limited, there is an
overall understanding of FASAB standard 4, Managerial Cost Accounting
and its mandate to determine the full cost of programs and activities.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to
have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting. The clearly preferred
methodology for such a system, as stated in that standard, is the one
known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby the full cost is
calculated for each of the activities of an agency. What is the status
of your agency's implementation of the Managerial Cost Accounting
requirement, and are you using Activity-Based Costing?
Answer. Since 1998, NRCS has been implementing cost accounting in
the agency. The process requires a cultural change in recording time
and allocating costs to activities and programs. The process began with
the implementation of the Total Cost Accounting System (TCAS). TCAS
replaced the old methodology by which employees recorded only the time
worked with a system that permits reporting amount of time by activity
and by the program the activity supports. The second part of the
process is to allocate the remaining costs of the agency to programs
and activities using reasonable allocable bases. This process requires
links to the future USDA financial information system called Foundation
Financial Information System (FFIS) and to the NRCS Integrated
Accountability System (IAS) to relate costs to performance data.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
and depreciation?
Answer. Eventually, this will be possible. Once the TCAS system is
linked to the FFIS and the IAS, NRCS will be able to determine the full
costs of activities and programs and calculate administrative costs,
employee benefits and depreciation.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. Yes, the agency would be able to document more precisely
the dollars spent on programs, the costs of activities within the
programs.
Question. Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each
activity and result?
Answer. The ultimate achievement of the per-unit cost will be
possible once the previously mentioned systems are linked.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with any
particular performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. The agency performance plan includes tables that estimate
the amount of funds of each program that support each strategic
objective. These tables show estimates based on available information.
In the current plan for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, the
estimates for an objective include overhead; all funds of all programs
are distributed among the objectives. There are, however, significant
limitations in the data on which the estimates are based. Efforts to
improve the data are ongoing. We have concentrated first on developing
a system to account for field-level activities in terms of outputs. We
developed a national workload analysis that defines the great variety
of field office activities as a set of well-defined, mutually-exclusive
work processes and identifies the steps that compose each process.
Local teams estimated the time required to complete these activities on
a typical operation in each of the more than 200 time team areas that
make up the nation. We are using this data to project the field time
needed to achieve certain types of goals and the possible shifting of
personnel that might be involved. We intend to expand the workload
system to include other agency activities above the field level. In
many cases, the linkages of the outputs in the workload analysis to the
program accounts and to resource outcomes are weak at present.
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
the development of the agency's performance plan.
Answer. This agency does not have any regulatory authority or role.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2001 performance plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievement?
Answer. Our strategic plan briefly describes key external factors
that might influence the ability of the agency to achieve the goals in
the plan. Our current performance plan also includes brief descriptions
of key external factors that might affect certain groups of performance
goals.
Question. If so, what steps have you identified to prepare,
anticipate and plan for such influences?
Answer. We are strengthening our capability to analyze resource and
other data to identify emerging trends in production patterns and
resource use to help anticipate changes that might intensify pressures
on the resource base. We are also moving to a system of more annual
resource inventories for key indicators so that we can identify where
change is occurring and revise strategies before severe problems can
develop. In addition we are strengthening our working relationships
with other natural resources agencies in order to draw on their data
and expertise.
Question. What impact might external forces have on your resource
estimates?
Answer. The transition to market-driven agriculture could result in
changes in land use and cropping patterns that affect the conservation
needs on agricultural land, impacting the level of assistance producers
need from USDA. Enactment of new requirements for resource protection,
at either the national level or by a significant number of states,
could greatly affect the level and kind of resources NRCS would need to
help landusers meet their responsibilities. Changes in domestic or
international economic conditions could substantially alter
agricultural commodity prices, farm incomes, and the ability of private
individuals to maintain or enhance their investments in conservation of
natural resources. Such changes could also affect the ability of state
and local members of the conservation partnership to increase their
contributions to joint conservation initiatives. Also, dramatic changes
in weather patterns, such as those experienced with El Nino, could have
significant impacts on resources needed for protecting natural
resources and the environment.
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication? If so,
does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or duplication?
Answer. There is some overlap in the sense that several of our
programs are authorized to address a wide range of resource goals.
Rather than causing duplication, this overlap creates flexibility that
permits us to tailor assistance to meet the wide range of conditions
and needs in local areas across the country. In the performance plan,
the programs that can be used to address goals are shown in the tables
that map programs to resource objectives. In addition, there are areas
of cooperation on outcomes for which other USDA agencies and agencies
of other departments have a role. In these situations, our role as
provider of technical assistance supports the efforts of other federal
entities whose authorities and role are different from ours.
Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
potential duplication and overlapping functions in the GPRA plans, and
if so, how?
Answer. Agencies that have been identified as high risk may find it
appropriate to include in their performance plans measures to track
progress toward eliminating the risk. We do not, however, think that
management challenges should become a primary focus of the GPRA process
or that routine operational concerns should be reflected in most
agencies' plans. GPRA focuses on the outcomes of agency activities.
There is a danger that requiring a major emphasis on internal
management issues in GPRA plans will seriously dilute the focus on
outcomes.
Because GPRA plans focus on outcomes, and most true outcomes are
achieved as a result of actions by multiple agencies, GPRA plans are an
appropriate avenue for analyzing the interaction of agencies' programs
to ensure coordinated action rather than duplication of effort.
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
guide decision making? Will this use increase in the future and, if so,
in what ways?
Answer. Agency leadership has used performance information and
workload information to formulate and evaluate alternative goals and
strategies and to consult with partners on mutual activities. Use of
GPRA information will increase in the future as the components of the
system are fully implemented and as managers become more familiar with
the data and its uses.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that:
To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature to
allow for these kinds of uses?
Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making estimates for
certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the accuracy of
resource estimates?
Answer. Some additional development and evaluation of our new
accountability system must be conducted before we consider the system
fully mature. For many measures, we do not yet have reliable baselines
against which to measure future performance. Fiscal year 2000 is the
first year of full implementation for the new performance reporting
system. Not all quality control processes for the performance reporting
system were in place at the beginning of the year. Also, mangers need
some time to become familiar with the new system and ensure that
performance information is being entered accurately and consistently in
all offices. At present, there is inexperience with making estimates
for some activities. The workload analysis has been conducted three
times, resulting in a good quality product that field-level employees
understand. However, more experience is needed to develop the linkages
between outputs and outcomes so that reliable projections of
performance can made. Additional training to increase the understanding
of the several components of the system will be provided to field-level
employees later this year.
Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements? Specifically, are you requesting any
relaxation of transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
accountability commitments?
Answer. No, we are not requesting any waivers.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 2000 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. As NRCS revises its strategic plan for the next GPRA cycle,
we anticipate changes in strategic goals and objectives as a result of
new data and information available from the accountability system. We
expect that accountability data will allow the agency to better
evaluate alternative ways of framing goals and performance targets that
take advantage of the ability to better evaluate the costs of achieving
targets. We also expect to consider including sub-goals for regional
concerns of national significance that can now be tracked through both
performance and time expenditure systems, in addition to generalized
national goals. The data available from the new system will enable us
to make needed adjustments to previously established goals, objectives,
and performance targets where analyses indicate they are needed. It
will also enable us to refine performance measures to align them more
directly with performance monitoring systems. Conversely, the
flexibility of the integrated accountability system will now allow
rapid changes in data collection to accommodate changes in performance
measures on both a strategic and annual basis. We are also now able to
establish more discrete performance targets for specific strategic
objectives and use performance-related data to make adjustments to
future year performance estimates from emerging initiatives and events
based on real-time data linking performance, time expenditures,
resource concerns, and workload.
In addition, during this GPRA cycle we have new data and analyses
from the National Resource Inventory (NRI) that will help in evaluating
progress. The combination of these data and information may lead to the
development of strategic goals, objectives, or performance targets that
are considerably more useful for measuring agency success than those of
the first plan.
______
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. The Annual Performance Plan covering fiscal years 2000 and
2001 is a blueprint of the program objectives and performance goals for
NASS. The performance plan is closely linked to not only the Agency's
mission statement, but to the NASS and the Research, Education, and
Economics (REE) Strategic Plans as well, and is framed by the REE
general outcomes outlined in those strategic plans. The NASS Annual
Performance Plan links the budget and performance goals by showing the
Agency's funding and Full Time Equivalents (FTE's) allocated by the REE
mission area general goals. The last page of the NASS Annual
Performance Plan includes Resource Tables showing the three NASS
program activities divided according to the REE goals.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities?
Answer. Budget activities and initiatives, since they are mission
and strategic goal oriented, align well with overall NASS performance
goals.
Question. What difficulties, if any, did you encounter, and what
lessons did you learn?
Answer. The only difficulty arises when budget activities relate to
multiple goals and must be allocated across them.
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget?
Answer. Yes. The NASS Revised fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001
Performance Plan links funding and FTE's with performance goals and
associated measures; funding and FTE levels are shown by goal as well
as by individual budget activity.
Question. Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. Each appropriations account by program activity has
associated performance measures for each goal. NASS program activities
are agricultural estimates, statistical research and service, and the
census of agriculture.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Answer. Accounts by activity structure are cross-walked against
strategic and performance goals. Program activities are designed to
contribute to goals from performance planning.
Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. No changes are planned at this time.
Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
described under that account structure?
Answer. No, program activities will remain unchanged.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. NASS's senior executive decision making body, the Program
Planning Committee, reviews the specific performance measures in
semiannual meetings and requests more information from individual
units, as needed. The responsibility for reporting the needed data for
the performance measures resides within the individual NASS work units.
In addition to the Agency GPRA Strategic Plan, NASS developed an
internal NASS Action Plan, a major tool which provides employees with a
more detailed blueprint for achievement of the NASS goals and
objectives. This document contains internal performance targets,
strategies, and measures which were developed at the grassroots level
by NASS employees. The NASS Action Plan also includes the specific
performance measures reported in the Agency's Annual Performance Plan.
Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
Answer. Most of the tabulated data and information was part of
evaluation monitoring readily available within the NASS work units.
NASS absorbed the resources and costs associated with these activities.
Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. Yes. The NASS plan includes performance measures for which
reliable data were not available for the fiscal year 1999 Annual
Program Performance Report. However, they are footnoted or fully
explained in the plan.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
2000 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results?
Answer. NASS recommends tracking the performance goal listed under
general goal 1, since this represents the largest part of NASS's
agricultural statistics program. The other key performance goal for
NASS is listed under goal 5, which contains the measures for the census
of agriculture.
NASS Performance Goal 1: Provide timely and impartial agricultural
statistics for use by all market participants which promote an
economically viable and competitive agricultural production system.
Performance measures listed under Goal 1 include: Percent of NASS
reports that are complete, meet scheduled release dates, and contain no
data errors; percent of total national agricultural production included
in the NASS annual statistics program; percent of data users who rate
NASS data as important or essential to the orderly marketing of
agricultural products; and the NASS annual report release calendar is
published and distributed prior to the start of each year.
NASS Performance Goal 5: Provide detailed data from the census of
agriculture at specified intervals to facilitate locality based policy
and business decisions benefitting farmers, ranchers, and rural
residents, and provide necessary and sufficient economic data on
prices, labor, cost of production, farm numbers, and farm income to
enable informed policy decisions to benefit farmers, ranchers, and
rural residents. Performance measures listed under Goal 5 include:
Number of months earlier than previous agricultural censuses for
release of U.S. census data, and percent completeness improvement for
coverage of minority operated farms compared to the previous
agricultural census.
Question. For each key annual goal, indicate whether you consider
it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measure (``how
well'').
Answer. Performance measures for the NASS Goal 1 are outcome
measures on how well the Agency performed against standards, including
data user ratings of NASS data as important or essential to the orderly
marketing of agricultural products. Performance measures for the NASS
Goal 5 are measures of how well the census of agriculture was conducted
relative to previous censuses.
Question. State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and
objective from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is
linked.
Answer. The five General Goals in the NASS Strategic Plan can be
viewed in both the long-term or short-term. The fiscal year 2000-2001
Annual Performance Plans contain the same organizing matrix (General
Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Performance Goals) as does the NASS
Strategic Plan. The fiscal year 2001 budget request is linked by the
crosswalks to the General Goals of the Strategic Plan. The Annual
Performance Plans transmitted to Congress contain indicators for the
fiscal year 2000-2001 that can be achieved with base funding. The
fiscal year 2001 plan also identifies activities that will be initiated
or expanded with the new funds requested in the President's budget.
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. Material was gathered from the internal and external
interviews, as well as results from a NASS organizational climate
survey, middle manager committee meetings, data users meetings and
other NASS employee and customer feedback efforts, which contributed to
the deliberations of the Agency's Program Planning Committee.
Understanding the needs, goals, and concerns of both data suppliers and
customers concerning NASS products and services is crucial to continued
success. Similar attention is necessary for the internal constituency,
the staff and management of NASS. NASS has taken the approach of
formulating meaningful outcome measures which assess NASS's ability to
provide accurate, unbiased, meaningful, useful data on time with no
errors.
Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
Answer. Yes. Program managers understand these differences. NASS
program managers have participated in the Agency's strategic planning
efforts including the development of measures for the annual
performance plans and the annual program performance report.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
external customers.
Answer. NASS is working in partnership with the Federal Consulting
Group, Department of Treasury, to conduct a survey of a sample of
external customers representing all data users at the national level.
Internal customers are measured with NASS's Biannual Organizational
Climate Survey.. The instrument to be used is the American Customer
Satisfaction Index which delivers customer satisfaction information
that is actionable, linked to outcomes, and is comparable across other
agencies governmentwide. The resulting measures will also establish a
baseline and provide needed trend data.
Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 2000
Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
Answer. NASS evaluated the level of support for each of the REE
general goals and corresponding Agency performance goals and measures
in making the decisions related to the development of the fiscal year
2001 budget, particularly with regard to the new program initiatives.
Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by
this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact
the change would have on the level of program performance and the
achievement of various goals?
Answer. Yes. NASS is a service agency whose customers are affected
by the extent and frequency with which NASS can provide needed
agricultural statistics. Significant budget changes have a direct
bearing on the level of program performance such as statistical
coverage, accuracy, and timeliness.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results?
Answer. Yes. NASS has the ability to communicate electronically to
every employee in NASS and is able to distribute program performance
information throughout the year on a regular basis. Work units can
disseminate information on the electronic NASS Bulletin Boards as well
as the internal NASSNet Intranet system, both of which are easily
accessed by all employees.
Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
Answer. Program performance information is accessible to all
employees when it is posted on the information systems in NASS.
Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
performance-related data located throughout your various information
systems?
Answer. Yes. While there are no reporting systems that have been
specifically designed and developed for the GPRA performance measures,
the NASS GPRA performance reports are readily accessible to all
employees from the NASS Bulletin Boards as well as the NASSNet Intranet
system. Performance-related data reported in the fiscal year 1999
Annual Program Performance Report and annual performance plans were
developed by the individual work units.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget. Answer. Many agencies have indicated that
their present budget account structure makes it difficult to link
dollars to results in a clear and meaningful way. Have you faced such
difficulty?
Answer. No. NASS's present budget accounting structure aligns with
core program activities to allow for the development of meaningful
performance indicators and resource allocations. The only weakness in
this design may be that the REE general goals which each agency in the
REE mission area adhere to are quite general, sometimes making it
difficult to directly link the impact of specific budget decisions on
performance goals and measures.
Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
structure were modified?
Answer. No. Changing the NASS budget accounting structure is
unlikely to help the current planning process.
Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
to this committee than the present structure?
Answer. Not applicable.
Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. Not applicable.
Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
government functions; and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
perform these functions. Could you comment on your agency's cost
accounting expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. Although the Department has some personnel with cost
accounting expertise, the Department's Chief Financial Officer has
recognized the need for a Department-wide effort to enhance cost
accounting expertise and $240,000 is included in the fiscal year 2001
President's Budget request to provide such leadership. Currently, we
are linking budget program activities to the goals in our annual
performance plan. Ultimately, with additional fiscal year 2001
resources and a better trained workforce, the Department will continue
to implement improvements in this area.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
OMB, this year for the first time all Federal agencies are required to
have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting.
The clearly preferred methodology for such a system, as stated in
that standard, is the one known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby
the full cost is calculated for each of the activities of an agency.
What is the status of your agency's implementation of the
Managerial Cost Accounting requirement, and are you using Activity-
Based Costing?
Answer. USDA is in compliance with FASAB's cost accounting
standards. The Department has identified responsibility segments, for
which financial statement reporting is provided, employing full cost
techniques that include unfunded pension and accrued annual leave,
Federal Employment Compensation Act accrued expenses, GSA rent,
depreciation, and other expense items that are appropriate. Currently,
the Department uses several costing techniques, including Activity-
Based Costing, that permit us to determine the cost of our strategic
goals and selected output activities.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
and depreciation?
Answer. The Department's current goal is to implement the
Foundation Financial Information System throughout all USDA agencies in
order to provide standardized accounting methodologies and improve data
integrity for management and reporting purposes for salaries and
expenses and administrative operations. As the Department improves its
basic accounting and reporting processes, it will be able to better
identify activities and outputs for unit costing and will evaluate the
various accounting methodologies available and incorporate the
appropriate methodology for the activity being costed.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. Yes, we strongly believe that effective implementation of
costing systems will vastly improve Federal planning, evaluation, and
reporting at all levels of the organization.
Question. Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each
activity and result?
Answer. Yes, as the Department implements activity-based costing,
it will be able to provide unit costs for activities and results.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with any
particular performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. Baseline budgets cross-cut through all of the goals with
supporting cost data provided for the programs by goal. Overhead costs
are fully allocated.
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
the development of the agency's performance plan.
Answer. Since NASS is not a regulatory agency, no regulatory reform
measures are included in the performance plan.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 performance plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievement?
Answer. No. The NASS performance plan only provides a framework to
evaluate NASS's key external factors which have important implications
for the NASS program. The factors most important for the next decade
are explicitly listed in the Agency's strategic plan. For example, one
key external factor influencing NASS is the increasing demand among
data users for new kinds of information provided in alternative forms.
These pressing data user needs and requests always require an
assessment of NASS resources and priorities. Rapid changes, continued
concentration and more vertical integration in the agricultural
industry has required NASS to modify procedures for collecting and
publishing information for certain sectors of the industry. The need to
sustain, and even increase, NASS's high standards for accuracy,
timeliness, and relevancy in order to meet rising public expectations
requires constant technological upgrades, training, and improved survey
methodology. Changes in customer priorities and the addition of new
program initiatives can result in shifts in resource allocations, all
of which must be balanced against the reporting burden on individual
producers.
Question. If so, what steps have you identified to prepare,
anticipate, and plan for such influences?
Answer. NASS developed a 1998 Action Plan which is an internal
document for use by employees that updates and complements the NASS
Strategic Plan. The action plan presents immediate, tactical goals that
must be met for NASS to realize its vision and accomplish its mission
is a manner consistent with the objectives of the official strategic
plan. For each tactical goal the plan lists concrete objectives and the
actions to be taken to attain them. The action plan serves as a ``road
map'' to guide NASS employees to the goals and objectives of the
strategic plan.
Question. What impact might external factors have on your resource
estimates?
Answer. The impact of these factors and the continued increase in
information demands will most likely create a growing need for more
appropriated resources for the collection of agricultural information,
analysis, and publishing of NASS reports in a timely manner.
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication?
Answer. No. NASS is the primary USDA agricultural statistical
agency whose agricultural statistics mission does not overlap or
duplicate that of any other agency within or outside of USDA.
Question. If so, does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or
duplication?
Answer. Not applicable.
Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
and if so, how?
Answer. Yes. Each Agency has unique challenges for management
depending on the culture of the organization, function, and mission.
Each agency should address these organizational management challenges
internally and externally with their customers, and work with the
appropriate agencies regarding the specific areas of concern.
Duplicative and overlapping functions should be justified and handled
in the budget and appropriations processes. In addition, the annual
performance plans should include a full discussion of goals and
indications for these areas.
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
guide decision making?
Answer. The original strategic planning activity was initiated in
NASS in 1993 and a final plan was accepted by the Administrator in
1994. The 1998 Action Plan builds upon the work embodied in earlier
plans. The current GPRA strategic plan for NASS emulates the Agency's
continued strategic planning efforts. For example, the NASS strategic
plan and strong NASS leadership provided a solid foundation for the
successful transfer of the Census of Agriculture from the Department of
Commerce in fiscal year 1997. The ongoing expansion of the
environmental statistics program is another growing area that is
reflected in the GPRA plans.
Question. Will this use increase in the future and if so in what
ways?
Answer. Senior management will continue to use strategic planning
as a tool for program planning which has been very successfully
integrated into the Agency's leadership and management process. The
high level of NASS strategic planning efforts will continue into the
future.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that: To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
to allow for these kinds of uses?
Answer. Established performance goals for NASS are in response to
customer requests, most often expressed through the budgetary process.
Most performance measures associated with each of the goals are
relatively immature and would not provide a complete ``picture'' by
themselves for make funding decisions. Responding to the data needs of
those dependent upon and concerned with the Nation's agriculture is the
most meaningful performance measurement.
Question. Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making
estimates for certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the
accuracy of resource estimates?
Answer. Yes, the most significant difficulty is measuring Agency
performance against the rapidly increasing demand for more and better
agricultural statistics with which to make increasingly complex and
critical decisions.
Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements?
Answer. No waivers have been requested.
Question. Specifically, are you requesting any relaxation of
transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
accountability commitments?
Answer. No requests have been made.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 2000 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. No. No major revisions were reflected in the fiscal year
2000 performance plan that required NASS to substantially revise the
1997 GPRA strategic plan.
______
ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE (ERS)
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. ERS's annual performance goals all aim to increase
understanding of a variety of economic issues. They flow directly from
ERS's mission, which is to provide economic analysis on efficiency,
efficacy, and equity issues related to agriculture, food, natural
resources, and rural development to improve public and private decision
making. The annual performance goals parallel ERS's strategic goals.
ERS program activities--research planning and conduct, and
dissemination of research results and economic information--directly
support the strategic and annual performance plan goals.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities?
What difficulties, if any, did you encounter, and what lessons did
you learn?
Answer. Increasingly, since the strategic plan was developed, the
strategic and performance goals have become organizing principles for
the ERS program and planning for future activities. This is a fairly
straightforward process since ERS has five strategic goals and five
performance goals. ERS has determined the number of staff years
allocated to each goal and uses that as a basis for linking the
performance goals to the budget. There were no significant
difficulties.
Question. Does the agency Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget?
Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. ERS's budget has one appropriation item, economic analysis
and research. The Performance Plan's five goals are linked and
dependent on funding levels allocated within the agency.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Do you plan to propose any changes to your account structure for
fiscal year 2001?
Will you propose any changes to the program activities described
under that account structure?
Answer. ERS's performance planning structure does not differ from
its account and activity structure. ERS does not propose any changes to
its account structure for fiscal year 2001.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
How did the agency balance the cost of data collection and
verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
Does your plan include performance measures for which reliable data
are not likely to be available in time for your first performance
report in March 2000?
Answer. ERS has always been concerned with its performance and has
maintained information on its analytical outputs, their use, and their
impacts on decisions about U.S. agriculture, food, natural resources,
and rural development. ERS began a review of its planning and
performance measurement systems in fiscal year 1995 when it provided
all managers training on the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) and results-oriented management approaches. At that time, a
group of middle managers reviewed and redrafted ERS performance
measures. Subsequent mission area-wide activities in 1996-97 provided
senior and middle ERS managers additional opportunities to test and
refine ERS's performance measures including exchanges with staff at
other government research agencies that were engaged in pilot GPRA
projects and staff at private research companies. The performance
plans' external reviews included meetings convened by the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory
Board and included individuals from agri-business, public interest
groups, and universities. The measures have also been critiqued
extensively within USDA. Lessons reinforced were: do not make
performance measurement so difficult that no one has time to work on
achieving goals; good planning is an ongoing process and assessments
will lead to further refinements; staff will perform to indicators--
make sure measures lead to correct outcomes; and research agencies face
special difficulties in tying research results to broader outcomes.
Good measures for a research program are difficult to develop, and ERS
is process of re-thinking the measures currently in place.
ERS will be able to produce and verify the data needed to underpin
measures specified in its performance plan with very little additional
cost. ERS would like to get more feedback from users outside the
Federal Government, but is carefully considering the costs of doing so.
The agency is in the process of developing a customer management
program for its research monographs and periodicals that is expected to
provide for a feedback loop.
ERS had reliable data for completing its fiscal year 1999
Performance Report.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
2000 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results?
For each key annual goal, indicate whether you consider it to be an
output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measure (``how well'').
State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and objective
from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is linked.
Answer. The ERS Annual Performance Plan has one performance goal
for each strategic goal. Each goal has two measures--one a quality
measure and the other a timeliness measure. Each measure provides
useful information on ERS's success in enhancing understanding by
policy makers of key economic issues. The measures, though useful, do
not fully describe ERS's success in meeting its goals. It is extremely
difficult to measure the effectiveness and impact of research.
Quantitatively and definitively establishing a link between economic
analysis provided to decision makers and the outcome of the decision
making process is rarely, if ever, possible. As a result, ERS used
narratives in its fiscal year 1999 Performance Report to demonstrate
that the agency ensured that high quality, objective, relevant, timely,
and accessible analyses were made available to policy makers
regulators, program managers, and organizations shaping public debate.
All of ERS's performance goals and objectives are outcome oriented.
The measures are closer to being output oriented, which is why the
agency felt it necessary to supplement the performance report with
narratives in its fiscal year 1999 Performance Report. Future plans and
reports are expected to be in an alternative format.
The long-term goals and objectives from the strategic plan are
linked to the annual performance goals as follows (taken directly from
the fiscal year 2000-01 Annual Performance Plan):
Goal 1: The agricultural production system is highly competitive in
the global economy.
Objective 1.1: Enhanced understanding by policy makers, regulators,
program managers, and those shaping public debate of economic issues
involved in ensuring that the U.S. food and agriculture sector
effectively adapts to changing market structure, domestic policy
reforms, and post-GATT and post-NAFTA trade conditions.
Performance Goal 1: Provide policy makers, regulators, program
managers, and organizations shaping public debate with timely and high
quality analyses of the economic issues affecting the U.S. food and
agriculture sector's competitiveness including factors related to
performance, structure, risk and uncertainty, marketing, and market and
non-market trade barriers.
Goal 2: The food production system is safe and secure.
Objective 2.1: Enhanced understanding by policy makers, regulators,
program managers, and those shaping public debate of economic issues
involved in improving the efficiency, efficacy, and equity of public
policies and programs designed to protect consumers from unsafe food.
Performance Goal: Provide policy makers, regulators, program
managers, and organizations shaping public debate with timely and high
quality analyses of economic issues affecting the safety of the U.S.
food supply including the efficacy, efficiency, and equity of
alternative policies and programs designed to protect consumers from
unsafe food.
Goal 3: The nation's population is healthy and well-nourished.
Objective: Enhanced understanding by policy makers, regulators,
program managers, and organizations shaping public debate of the
factors affecting food prices and of the efficiency and effectiveness
of alternative public policies and programs aimed at ensuring consumers
equitable access to wide varieties of high quality food at affordable
prices.
Performance Goal: Provide policy makers, regulators, program
managers, and organizations shaping public debate with timely and high
quality analyses of economic issues affecting the nutrition and health
of the U.S. population including factors related to food choices,
consumption patterns at and away from home, food prices, food
assistance programs, nutrition education, and food industry structure.
Goal 4: Agriculture and the environment are in harmony.
Objective: Enhanced understanding by policy makers, regulators,
program managers, and those shaping public debate of the economic
issues involved in balancing long term sustainability goals with
improved agricultural competitiveness and economic growth and of the
effects of Federal farm, natural resource, and rural policies and
programs on that balance.
Performance Goal: Provide policy makers, regulators, program
managers, and organizations shaping public debate with analyses of
economic issues affecting agriculture's interface with the environment
including those related to integrated pest management, sustainability,
biodiversity, global change, and environmental accounting.
Goal 5: Enhanced economic opportunity and quality of life for rural
Americans.
Objective: Enhanced understanding by policy makers, regulators,
program managers, and organizations shaping public debate of economic
issues affecting rural development and performance of all sizes of
American farms.
Performance Goal: Provide policy makers, regulators, program
managers, and those shaping public debate with timely and high quality
economic analyses that identify (1) how investments in rural people,
businesses, and communities affect rural economies' capacity to survive
and prosper in the global marketplace and (2) what policies and
programs keep American farms of all sizes viable.
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. Interpreting outcome measurements is not a straightforward
process for research organizations. The cause and effect relationship
between research outputs and eventual outcomes is complex. The
challenges facing those interpreting performance measures for a public
information and analytical organization such as ERS are even greater.
Public information can be freely used without attribution. Its
widespread use and effects may be difficult to fully measure. Delays
between when research results are presented and when their effects are
fully assimilated are variable and can be long. Specific outcomes are
influenced by factors besides quality research results. If ERS analysis
is objective, analysis on the efficacy, efficiency, and equity impacts
of specific policies, programs, and regulations will at any one time
support some customers' proposals but not others. Rigorous adherence to
standards of disciplinary excellence contributes greatly to the quality
and objectivity of ERS analyses and their defensibility. The narratives
included in ERS performance reports are key to showing how ERS analysis
enhanced understanding of key economic issues by policy makers,
regulators, program managers, and others.
Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
Answer. Yes, and they are particularly aware of the difficulty in
measuring outcomes of research and analysis. ERS has a head start in
making sure that program managers understand the difference between
workload and effectiveness measures. Most ERS employees are economists
with substantial interest, training, and experience in understanding
efficacy, efficiency, and equity concepts. In addition, ERS augmented
program managers' training specific to GPRA requirements beginning in
fiscal year 1995, providing managers with training on GPRA and results
oriented management approaches.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
external customers.
Answer. ERS is looking at a variety of qualitative indicators to
help measure customer satisfaction and to understand how ERS research
results are used by decision makers and thus affect outcomes. Some of
these indicators are likely to become part of ERS's alternative
measurements. ERS internal customers include the Office of the
Secretary, the Chief Economist and other USDA agencies. External
customers include Congress, other Federal agencies, industry groups,
and other researchers, both in universities and in private
organizations. Possible indicators are: (1) call backs for follow up
information/analysis from policy makers; (2) requests for ERS staff as
primary speakers at important meetings/conferences; (3) articles in
major public media that correctly and effectively use ERS analysis and
data; and (4) relevance of ERS output to stated Administration or
congressional priorities. To ensure that the outputs present data and
analyses that are high quality, comprehensive, objective, relevant and
accessible, ERS routinely provides its customers many opportunities for
feedback, conducts rigorous peer reviews before analysis is released,
and uses a wide variety of proven and innovative dissemination systems.
Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 2000
Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by this
committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact the
change would have on the level of program performance and the
achievement of various goals?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget reflects the ERS fiscal year
2000 Performance Plan and performance goals. Changes in the level of
funding affect ERS ability to produce and disseminate its research and
analysis. ERS would be able to provide information on the impact of
funding changes on performance goals.
Question. Do you have technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired results?
If so, who has access to the information--senior management only,
or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
Are you able to gain access easily to various performance-related
data located throughout your various information systems?
Answer. ERS could prepare program performance reports at any time
during the year. However, the nature of research outcomes including the
often long evolution between provision of economic analysis and any
particular public and private decisions, means that frequent detailed
measurement and reporting may not be cost effective or meaningful for
understanding overall progress on meeting goals and objectives. ERS is
in the process of developing a system that brings together performance
information from a variety of current tracking systems. That will make
it simpler for managers and supervisors at all levels to track progress
on certain specific activities over the course of the year.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget. Many agencies have indicated that their
present budget account structure makes it difficult to link dollars to
results in a clear meaningful way.
Have you faced that difficulty? Would the linkages be clearer if
your budget account structure were modified?
If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you believe
such modification would be more useful both to your agency and to this
committee than the present structure?
How would such modification strengthen accountability for program
performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. Because ERS's budget has one appropriation item--economic
analysis and research--ERS does not face difficulties in linking
performance across various accounting and reporting structures and
presenting its budget by performance goals.
Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
government functions; and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
perform these functions.
Could you comment on your agency's cost accounting expertise and
plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. Although the Department has some personnel with cost
accounting expertise, the Department's Chief Financial Officer has
recognized the need for a Department-wide effort to enhance cost
accounting expertise and $240,000 is included in the fiscal year 2001
President's Budget request to provide such leadership. Currently, we
are linking budget program activities to the goals in our annual
performance plans. With additional fiscal year 2001 resources and a
better trained workforce, the Department will continue to implement
improvements in this area.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issue by
OMB, this year for the first time, all Federal agencies are required to
have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting.
The clearly preferred methodology for such a system, as stated in
that standard, is the one know as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby
the full cost is calculated for each of the activities of an agency.
Question. What is the status of your agency's implementation of the
managerial cost accounting requirement, and are you using Activity-
Based Costing?
Answer. USDA is in compliance with FASAB's cost accounting
standards. The Department has identified responsibility segments, for
which financial statement reporting is provided, employing full cost
techniques that include unfunded pension and accrued annual leave,
Federal Employment Compensation Act accrued expenses, GSA rent,
depreciation, and other expense items that are appropriate. Currently,
the Department uses several costing techniques, including Activity-
Based Costing, that permit us to determine the cost of our strategic
goals, and selected output activities.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
and depreciation?
Answer. The Department's current goal is to implement the
Foundation Financial Information System throughout all USDA agencies in
order to provide standardized accounting methodologies and improve data
integrity for management and reporting purposes for salaries and
expenses and administrative operations. As the Department improves its
basic accounting and reporting processes, it will be able to better
identify activities and outputs for unit costing and will evaluate the
various accounting methodologies available and incorporate the
appropriate methodology for the activity being costed.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. Yes, the Department strongly believes that effective
implementation of costing systems will vastly improve Federal planning,
evaluation, and reporting at all levels of the organization.
Question. Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each
activity and result?
Answer. As the Department implements activity-based costing, it
will be able to provide unit costs for activities and results.
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
the development of the agency's performance plan.
Answer. None. ERS does not perform regulatory functions.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 performance plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievement? If so, what steps have you
identified to prepare, anticipate and plan for such influences? What
impacts might external factors have on resource estimates?
Answer. Implicit in ERS's fiscal year 2000 performance plan and
explicit in the strategic plan are external factors that could affect
achievement of ERS goals. Changes in the larger policy context in which
ERS operates will influence the content and orientation of ERS research
and analysis. These changes can be in Government policy, changes in
markets, or new technology; all influence the direction of the ERS
program. In addition, the changing needs of users of ERS information
influence ERS's program.
Steps taken to prepare for changing demands include continuous
communication with major customers and constant monitoring of trends in
markets and policy development. Anticipation of changes is a critical
part of ERS's research planning. Readiness to respond to unforeseen
changes is also built into the ERS decision making and budgeting
process. One means of providing flexibility is the quarterly allocation
of funds by the Administrator. Another is the agency's commitment to
seek reimbursements for research or analysis requested by customers.
ERS is committed to anticipating changes in external demands
because such demands can make it difficult to sustain core research,
which is the essential base on which the agency operates. Also, over
the longer run, those changes may need to become part of the core
research.
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication? If so
does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or duplication?
Answer. Development of the performance plan did not reveal
significant overlaps or duplication within the agency. Externally,
because ERS's economic analyses cover all aspects of USDA's mission,
the crosscuts between ERS research and the missions and goals of other
USDA agencies are extensive and complicated. However, even before GPRA
was implemented, ERS was cognizant that its unique contribution is
provision of external economic analysis and ensured that it did not
duplicate or overlap with program functions in other agencies.
Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
and if so, how?
Answer. Significant management challenges, including efforts to
deal with overlapping functions can and should be addressed through
management initiatives.
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
guide decision making?
Will this use increase in the future and, if so, in what ways?
Answer. GPRA is and will continue to be a significant factor in
agency decision making. The five strategic goals and the five
performance goals are central to research planning in ERS. Division and
branch annual plans are organized around the goals. A major overhaul of
the ERS website is underway, also organized around the goals. A new
agency information system currently under development will assist in
tracking activities, accomplishments, and, if possible, outcomes for
the purposes of GPRA and for other management needs.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that:
To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature to
allow for these kinds of uses?
Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making estimates for
certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the accuracy of
resource estimates?
Answer. ERS performance measures, supplemented by narrative
information provided in the Annual Performance Report are sufficiently
mature to allow funding decisions to consider actual performance
compared to targets. However, the caveats raised in earlier responses
about the complexity of measuring performance for a public research
organization remain. ERS is in the process of seeking an alternative
approach that better serves to measure performance. Quantitative
measures alone are not likely to completely fulfill this purpose.
Increasingly, agency management sees evaluation of agency programs and
program impacts as a central function.
Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements?
Specifically, are you requesting any relaxation of transfer or
reprogramming controls in return for specific accountability
commitments?
Answer. No
Question. Based on your fiscal year 2000 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. ERS will review and consider revisions to its strategic
plan during fiscal year 2000. Major revisions are not expected.
______
GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. There is a direct correlation between the Agency's mission,
strategic goals, performance goals, and budget activities. Each of the
Agency's budget activities--the Packers and Stockyards Program and the
Grain Inspection Program--is directly linked to a strategic goal and
supporting performance measures. The Packers and Stockyards Program is
represented in Goal 1 of the Agency's strategic plan, and the Grain
Inspection Program is represented in Goal 2. Both goals support the
Agency's mission and have supporting performance measures.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities? What difficulties, if any,
did you encounter, and what lessons did you learn?
Answer. In the drafting process, we ultimately designed the
Agency's strategic plan with the Agency's budget activities in mind.
The end result is that there is a one-to-one correlation between budget
activities and strategic goals and supporting performance goals.
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget? Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. Yes, each budget account is aligned with a strategic goal
and supporting performance measures.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Answer. There are no differences.
Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The Agency does not plan to propose any changes at this
time.
Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
described under that account structure?
Answer. The Agency does not currently plan to propose any changes
to the program activities described under our account structure.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. GIPSA focuses on what customers have indicated they want
measured--cost efficiency, timeliness of service, and accuracy of
results. To date, the Agency has developed measures of timeliness
(e.g., percentage of violations corrected within 1 year of
investigation's starting date) and cost efficiency (e.g., cost of the
official grain inspection and weighing service per metric ton using
constant 1992 dollars indexed on the Gross Domestic Product). The
Agency will be developing measurements of accuracy during fiscal year
2000.
Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
Answer. For some of the Agency's performance measures, such as cost
per metric ton, the data was already available and resulted in no extra
cost to the Agency. In other instances, the Agency is still struggling
with developing meaningful outcome measures and identifying the
necessary data sources.
Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. The Agency has performance measures for which reliable data
was available in time for the first performance report.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
2000 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results?
Answer. GIPSA's performance goals align with the Agency's budget
line items and, as a result, it would be difficult to assign greater
importance to any one goal. As given in the revised fiscal year 2000
and fiscal year 2001 Annual Performance Plans, the Agency's performance
goals and affiliated budget line items are: (1) Ensure a fair, open,
and competitive marketing environment for livestock, meat, and poultry;
(2) Increase the efficiency of grain inspection and weighing processes;
(3) Provide a standardized framework for the U.S. grain trade; (4)
Provide cost effective and responsive official grain inspection and
weighing services; (5) Protect the integrity of U.S. grain marketing
for the U.S. grain trade; (6) Implementation of workforce plan action
items (percent); and (7) Number of deficiencies and/or nonconformance.
Question. For each key annual goal, indicate whether you consider
it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measure (``how
well'').
Answer. Of these performance goals, numbers 6 and 7 are output
measures. Numbers 1 through 5 are outcome measures.
Question. State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and
objective from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is
linked.
Answer. The current Agency Strategic Plan extends to fiscal year
2002. To date, long-term fiscal year 2003 general goals and objectives,
have not been developed to which the annual goal can be linked. Of the
Agency's present performance goals listed above, the first one is
linked to our Strategic Goal 1. Performance Goals 2 through 5 support
Strategic Goal 2; and Performance Goals 6 and 7 support both Strategic
Goals 1 and 2.
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. The Agency is well aware of the importance and the
difficulty in developing meaningful outcome measures. GIPSA anticipates
refining some of its current performance goals and measures and intends
to develop new measures, accordingly.
Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
Answer. Although managers understand the difference, GIPSA
continues to have some difficulty in identifying meaningful outcome
goals. For example, standardization of grain quality and quantity
measurement improves market efficiency. Likewise, the use of grades and
standards improves market efficiency if the grades and standards
communicate the quality characteristics relevant to the market. GIPSA
directly controls the standardization of the official inspection system
and influences the standardization of the commercial market. Measuring
the use of grades and standards by the commercial market is
impractical, since nearly all those buying or selling grain use the
grades and standards to one degree or another. As a result, GIPSA is
attempting to develop surrogate measures that track the efficiency of
the official inspection system and the adequacy of grades and
standards.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
external customers.
Answer. GIPSA has conducted a survey of external customers of the
official inspection and weighing system. Results from the survey have
allowed the official system to quantitatively assess customer
satisfaction in terms of the factors that have been identified by
customers as being critical to the official system's success:
timeliness, accuracy and consistency, cost-effectiveness,
responsiveness, and professionalism. Results from the survey will also
serve as benchmarks against which further progress will be measured.
GIPSA has conducted surveys of employees of the grain program. The
Agency's managers and employees use survey results to identify the
Agency's strengths and weakness and to take actions to improve upon
both. The Agency plans to conduct another customer survey in fiscal
year 2000.
Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 2000
Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
Answer. We aligned the Agency's strategic goals and supporting
performance goals and measures with the Agency's two budget accounts,
the Packers and Stockyards Program and the Grain Program.
Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by
this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact
the change would have on the level of program performance and the
achievement of various goals?
Answer. If appropriated funding is increased or decreased, it would
have an impact on the Agency's target levels of performance and the
fiscal year 2001 Performance Plan would be revised accordingly.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results?
Answer. Yes. With the exception of one measure, GIPSA will rely on
internal agency procedures to track performance. In the future, this
will allow GIPSA to have the capability of regularly assessing program
progress. At the national level, the average cost of the inspection and
weighing program per metric ton (unadjusted) is included in the monthly
financial reports prepared by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service's Washington Financial Service Branch. GIPSA's success in
tracking the cost of the program is directly dependent on the
timeliness and quality of service it receives.
Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
Answer. Currently, access to the information is available mainly to
senior and mid-level management. We are, however, planning to extend
future access to lower-level managers.
Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
performance-related data located throughout your various information
systems?
Answer. While we would not consider it an easy process to gain
access to various performance-related data located throughout the
Agency's various information systems, we do expect access to become
easier as we continue to develop our various information systems.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget. Many agencies have indicated that their
present budget account structure makes it difficult to link dollars to
results in a clear and meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty?
Answer. Since GIPSA's program activities set forth in the budget
and the Agency's strategic and performance goals are aligned, the
Agency has not encountered such difficulty.
Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
structure were modified?
Answer. No, the linkages are currently clear.
Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
to this committee than the present structure?
Answer. Modification is not necessary at this time.
Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. Modification is not necessary at this time.
Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
government functions; and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
perform these functions: Could you comment on your agency's cost
accounting expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. GIPSA understands the importance of identifying real costs
to perform various government functions, as well as the importance of
allocating valuable, and sometimes limited, resources to perform these
functions. Although the Agency has limited cost accounting expertise,
it plans to use all available accounting resources at its disposal to
link GPRA to the budget process, and to identify real costs and
allocate Agency resources.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to
have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting.
The clearly preferred methodology for such a system, as stated in
that standard, is the one known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby
the full cost is calculated for each of the activities in the agency.
What is the status of your agency's implementation of the Managerial
Cost Accounting requirement, and are you using Activity-Based Costing?
Answer. We are just in the early stages of the Activity-Based
Costing process. The Agency has had meetings on the subject of
``Activity-Based Costing'' and is exploring possible training
opportunities to develop the necessary skills to carry out this
process.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
and depreciation?
Answer. It is the Agency's intent to be able to show the Committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity for each program, including
costs for such items as administration, employee benefits, and
depreciation.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. The Committee will be able to receive a much more accurate
accounting of the dollars spent on a program, the true costs of the
activities conducted by the program, and the subsequent results of
these activities.
Question. Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each
activity and result?
Answer. It is our intent to identify and track costs down to the
lowest practical levels within each activity, and thus be able to
report per-unit costs and results.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with any
particular performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. As near as possible, we hope to be able to identify the
full cost of all associated activities performed in support of a
particular performance goal, including associated overhead costs.
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
the development of the agency's performance plan.
Answer. The Agency has not identified, nor put in place, any
significant regulatory reform measures in conjunction with the
development of the Agency's performance plan.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 Performance Plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievement?
Answer. Yes, the fiscal year 2000 Performance Plan does identify
external factors.
Question. If so, what steps have you identified to prepare,
anticipate and plan for such influences?
Answer. GIPSA must effectively respond to the fluid and dynamic
business environments in which the grain and livestock industries
operate. Like many segments of American agriculture, these industries
are experiencing rapid changes such as mergers, acquisitions, vertical
integration, and increasingly automated operations. The changes are
shaping how GIPSA operates. For example, GIPSA has developed a field
office consolidation plan, which will allow more resources to be
located in regions where beef, pork, and poultry production and
processing are concentrated. Furthermore, the field offices will be
strengthened with additional expertise in economic, statistical, and
legal issues to more effectively conduct investigations of alleged
anticompetitive practices and financial and trade practice violations.
In the grain program, GIPSA has been working closely with official
agencies to enhance customer service. The end result has been ground
breaking. With the guidance of GIPSA, three official agencies have
formed a limited liability partnership that will enable them to better
serve a common customer, a large Midwestern grain cooperative. Even
more important, the cooperative will now be able to load unit trains
more quickly, with fewer problems, and for much less cost.
Question. What impact might external factors have on your resource
estimates?
Answer. Changing external factors may require the Agency's Packers
and Stockyards program to shift from one area of focus to another. In
the grain arena, increases or decreases in U.S. grain exports will
affect the cost per metric ton of the grain inspection and weighing
service provided.
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication? If so,
does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or duplication?
Answer. GIPSA has not identified any overlapping functions or
program duplication. GIPSA does, however, coordinate its program
activities with a number of government entities. Within USDA, GIPSA
works with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the
Agricultural Marketing Service on marketing issues; the Foreign
Agricultural Service on international trade issues and programs; the
Agricultural Research Service and the Economic Research Service for
research support; and the Office of the Inspector General on
investigative matters. Further, GIPSA cooperates with various non-USDA
entities, including the Food and Drug Administration on food safety
issues; the Environmental Protection Agency on pesticide residue
programs; and the Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission on investigative matters. GIPSA's strategic plan,
rather than its performance plan, addresses the coordination of
efforts.
Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
and if so, how?
Answer. GIPSA sees no need for agencies to address management
challenges and potential duplication and overlapping functions in their
GPRA plans. Hopefully, in developing their plans, agencies have already
identified and eliminated overlapping functions or program duplication.
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
guide decision making?
Answer. GIPSA has developed an investigation and case tracking
system, which will allow the Agency to track regional and industry-wide
investigations, thus increasing efficiencies for the Agency and
customers alike.
GIPSA has implemented an enhanced quality assurance and quality
control program to ensure the quality and accuracy of inspection
results nationwide. The new program includes a balance of national and
localized monitoring. A greater emphasis is being placed on proactive
actions to prevent problems from occurring rather than reacting to
problems once they have occurred.
Question. Will this use increase in the future and if so, in what
ways.
Answer. Yes, GPRA will increasingly be used to make decisions,
particularly with efforts to decrease costs and increase productivity.
Managers will continue to be reminded of the importance of GPRA and its
increasing impact on budgetary decisions.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that: To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
to allow for these kinds of uses? Are there any factors, such as
inexperience in making estimates for certain activities or lack of
data, that might affect the accuracy of resource estimates?
Answer. Given that the Agency's current performance goals and
measures are relatively immature, the Agency is in the process of
reviewing and refining its current goals and measures and developing
some new measures in time for the beginning of the fiscal year 2002
budgeting cycle.
Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements? Specifically, are you requesting any
relaxation of transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
accountability commitments?
Answer. GIPSA is not currently requesting any waivers of non-
statutory administrative requirements, nor is the Agency requesting any
relaxation of transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
accountability commitments.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 2000 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issues on September 30, 1997?
Answer. GIPSA does not foresee any need for any substantive
revisions in the Agency's strategic plan at this time.
______
NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. NAD has a single performance goal to conduct hearings and
issue determinations within applicable time frames and the entire
appropriation is used to support the achievement of that goal.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities?
Answer. NAD has a single performance goal that is linked to its
single budget activity.
Question. What difficulties, if any, did you encounter, and what
lessons did you learn?
Answer. No difficulties were encountered.
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget?
Answer. Yes, NAD's performance plan links its performance measures
to its budget.
Question. Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. NAD has one account and four corresponding performance
measures.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Answer. NAD's performance planning structure does not differ from
the activity structure.
Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for 2001?
Answer. NAD does not plan to propose any changes to the account
structure for 2001.
Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
described under that account structure?
Answer. No changes to the program activity described under that
account structure are proposed for 2001.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. NAD based its performance measures on statutory and
regulatory requirements.
Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
Answer. NAD considered the cost of data collection and verification
with respect to its existing information systems and additional
programs, and examined its quality and sufficiency with respect to the
need for reliable and valid performance data.
Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. No, our plan does not include performance measures for
which reliable data are not likely to be available in time for our
first performance report in March 2000.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
2000 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results?
Answer. NAD has one performance goal to conduct hearings and issue
determinations within applicable time frames.
Question. For each key annual goal, indicate whether you consider
it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measure (``how
well'').
Answer. NAD has four indicators for its one performance goal. The
indicators are based on outcome measures.
Question. State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and
objective from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is
linked.
Answer. NAD's long-term general goal and objective is to conduct
hearings and issue determinations within applicable time frames.
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. NAD undertook efforts to ensure that not only would
compiled data indicate compliance within time frames, but that both the
quality of customer service and the quality of the determinations would
be measured.
Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
Answer. Yes, we are confident that our program managers understand
the difference between goals that measure workload--output--and goals
that measure effectiveness--outcome.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please use examples of both internal and
external customers.
Answer. NAD uses the same customer satisfaction measures for
internal and external customers. These measures include identifying
levels of satisfaction with: treatment--courtesy and respect; The
customers' rights to present their case and tell their side of the
story; the level of fairness and impartiality; the degree of
responsiveness in answering questions; and the level of comprehension
in reading and understanding NAD information.
Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 2000
Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 budget was based upon a review of the
performance goal and measures.
Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by
this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact
the change would have on the level of program performance and the
achievement of various goals?
Answer. Yes, we would be able to indicate the likely impact.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results?
Answer. NAD maintains a management information system (NADTrack)
that tracks cases and provides data which enables NAD to properly
manage program performance.
Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
Answer. NADTrack information is provided and maintained by mid- and
lower-level program managers. The information is used by senior
management to consider in making decisions and to compile statistical
reports. Both managers and program managers, at all levels, have access
to the information.
Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
performance-related data located throughout your various information
systems?
Answer. The information system was designed for easy accessibility.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget? Many agencies have indicated that their
present budget account structure makes it difficult to link dollars to
results in a clear and meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty?
Answer. NAD has not faced any difficulties in linking dollars in a
clear and meaningful way to results.
Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
structure were modified?
Answer. Modification to NAD's budget account structure is not
necessary.
Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
to this committee than the present structure?
Answer. NAD does not propose to modify the budget account
structure.
Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. No such modification is necessary.
Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
government functions; and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
perform these functions. Could you comment on your agency's cost
accounting expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. Although the Department has some personnel with cost
accounting expertise, the Department's Chief Financial Officer has
recognized the need for a Department-wide effort to enhance cost
accounting expertise and $240,000 is included in the fiscal year 2001
President's Budget request to provide such leadership. Currently, we
are linking budget program activities to the goals in our annual
performance plan. Ultimately, with additional fiscal year 2001
resources and a better trained workforce, the Department will continue
to implement improvements in this area.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to
have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting. The clearly preferred
methodology for such a system, as stated in that standard, is the one
known as Activity-Based Costing, whereby the full cost is calculated
for each of the set activities of an agency. What is the status of your
agency's implementation of the Managerial Cost Accounting requirement,
and are you using Activity-Based Costing?
Answer. USDA is in compliance with FASAB's cost accounting
standards. The Department has identified responsibility segments, for
which financial statement reporting is provided, employing full cost
techniques that include unfunded pension and accrued annual leave,
Federal Employment Compensation Act accrued expenses, GSA rent,
depreciation, and other expense items that are appropriate. Currently,
the Department uses several costing techniques, including Activity-
Based Costing, that permit us to determine the cost of our strategic
goals and selected output activities.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
and depreciation?
Answer. The Department's current goal is to implement the
Foundation Financial Information System throughout all USDA agencies in
order to provide standardized accounting methodologies and improve data
integrity for management and reporting purposes for salaries and
expenses and administrative operations. As the Department improves its
basic accounting and reporting processes, it will be able to better
identify activities and outputs for unit costing and will evaluate the
various accounting methodologies available and incorporate the
appropriate methodology for the activity being costed.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. Yes, we strongly believe that effective implementation of
costing systems will vastly improve Federal planning, evaluation, and
reporting at all levels of the organization.
Question. Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each
activity and result?
Answer. As the Department implements activity based costing, it
will be able to provide unit costs for activities and results.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with any
particular performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. All costs, direct and indirect, are allocated to support
the achievement of NAD's single performance goal.
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
the development of the agency's performance plan.
Answer. NAD has not put any regulatory reform measures in place.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 performance plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievement?
Answer. NAD's fiscal year 2000 performance plan does not identify
any external factors that could influence goal achievement.
Question. If so, what steps have you identified to prepare,
anticipate and plan for such influences?
Answer. NAD's fiscal year 2000 performance plan does not identify
any significant external factors that could influence goal achievement,
therefore, no steps have been identified to prepare, anticipate and
plan for such influences.
Question. What impact might external factors have on your resource
estimates?
Answer. NAD does not have any significant external factors.
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication?
Answer. NAD has not identified any overlapping functions or program
duplication.
Question. If so, does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or
duplication?
Answer. NAD has not identified any overlapping functions or program
duplication.
Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
and if so, how?
Answer. NAD has not identified any overlapping functions or program
duplication.
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
guide decision making?
Answer. GPRA requirements have had a growing impact on agency
leaders' decision making. Customer service consideration and budget/
goal correlation are two areas considered in NAD's decision making.
Question. Will this use increase in the future and if so in what
ways?
Answer. NAD is moving from attribute data to continuous data in
measuring customer service. NAD is also finding better methods of
tailoring training programs based on quantitative data gathered at all
levels of the organization.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that: To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
to allow for these kinds of uses?
Answer. Our performance measures are sufficiently mature.
Question. Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making
estimates for certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the
accuracy of resource estimates?
Answer. No, there are no such factors.
Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements?
Answer. NAD is not requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements at this time.
Question. Specifically, are you requesting any relaxation of
transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
accountability commitments?
Answer. NAD is not requesting any relaxation of transfer or
reprogramming controls in return for specific accountability
commitments.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 2000 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. When the strategic plan was prepared, NAD had been in
existence less than four years and did not have the breadth of
experience needed to establish mature management-related goals and
indicators. NAD now has sufficient experience with which to establish
more realistic and meaningful management goals. NAD's 2000 Strategic
Plan will be modified to reflect more realistic and meaningful goals.
NAD's mission-related performance goal is expected to continue without
revision.
______
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. AMS' annual performance goals are directly linked to its
mission and strategic goals. The agency's program activities are
grouped according to the agency's two strategic goals; the performance
goals are listed by program activity. The table below shows the linkage
between each activity and strategic goal.
[The information follows:]
SUMMARY OF AMS STRATEGIC GOAL LINKAGES--FISCAL YEAR 2000
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goal 1 Goal 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marketing Services, Appropriated:
Market News................................... X
Standardization............................... X
Shell Egg Surveillance........................ X
Federal Seed Act Program...................... X
Pesticide Recordkeeping Program............... X
Pesticide Data Program........................ X
Wholesale Market Development.................. X
Transportation Services....................... X
Section 32, Appropriated:
Commodity Purchase Services................... X
Marketing Agreements and Orders............... X
User Funded:
Grading & Certification....................... X
Plant Variety Protection Act Program.......... X
Commodity Research and Promotion Acts......... X
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act X
Program......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities? What difficulties, if any,
did you encounter, and what lessons did you learn?
Answer. We used the budget activities as the framework for our
performance goals and did not encounter any difficulties.
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget? Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. Yes, the agency's performance plan links performance
measures to budget activities. AMS budget accounts include multiple
activities; each ongoing AMS activity has a performance measure.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification? Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2001? Will you propose any changes to the
program activities described under that account structure?
Answer. AMS' performance planning structure does not differ from
the budget structure. The activities in the annual performance plan are
the same as the activities in the budget justification. The budget
justification lists AMS activities by account, whereas the performance
planning structure lists the activities by goal. We do not plan to
propose any change to our account structure or program activities in
fiscal year 2001.
Question. How were performance measures chosen? How did the agency
balance the cost of data collection and verification with the need for
reliable and valid performance data? Does your plan include performance
measures for which reliable data are not likely to be available in time
for your first performance report in March 2000?
Answer. Performance measures were developed through a consensus of
program personnel and agency managers. As part of its strategic plan
development, AMS established committees of agency program personnel for
each activity. These committees were responsible for developing
performance measures for their activities based on the strategic plan.
AMS also formed a Strategic Planning Action Team at the Associate
Deputy Administrator level. This team monitors the performance goals in
the annual plan, gathers actual performance data semiannually, and
prepares a report to the Administrator. Data collection and
verification is an integral part of the programs that we carry out and
the collection of data was not a material obstacle. In the few cases
where performance data was found to be unavailable, AMS has revised the
performance goal.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
2000 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results? For each key annual goal, indicate whether
you consider it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome
measure (``how well''). State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general
goal and objective from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual
goal is linked.
Answer. Since the AMS performance goals track the budget
activities, we believe that the Subcommittee would be interested in all
of them. Most of AMS' performance goals are outcome measures; wherever
data is available. Output measures closely aligned with the goals were
used where outcome measures were not available.
Question. In developing you Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. We attempted, where possible, to provide outcome measures
for each program area. AMS formed a committee of program managers who
worked together to determine what measures best met the requirements of
GPRA and the needs of the managers for program operation.
Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
Answer. Yes, we believe AMS program managers understand the
differences. The problem, in some instances, was that measuring outcome
was not possible and we had to use output measures instead. For
example, our transportation services program helps to ensure that the
transportation system serves the needs of U.S. agriculture by providing
technical assistance to shippers and carriers, providing economic
analyses and recommending improvements to domestic and international
agricultural transportation. The best measure of program performance
currently available is the number of projects completed--an output
measure.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
external customers.
Answer. Some examples of customer satisfaction measures for
external customers include the performance goal for market news
services that is based on timeliness and the percentage of formal and
informal rulemaking completed within time frame goals.
Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 2000
Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by this committee,
will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact the change would
have on the level of program performance and the achievement of various
goals?
Answer. We developed the budget based on the agency's mission and
strategic plan then adjusted the performance goals as needed. We
changed the goal estimates based on the budget proposals. If the
proposed budget number is changed, AMS program personnel can estimate
the likely impact of the change on program performance. The performance
goals and indicators reflect the requested budget levels.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results? If so, who has access to the information--senior management
only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too? Are you able to
gain access easily to various performance-related data located
throughout your various information systems?
Answer. AMS has systems in place to measure and report program
performance throughout the year on a regular basis for management use.
Senior management has access to performance-related data on a
semiannual basis.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget. Many agencies have indicated that their
present budget account structure makes it difficult to link dollars to
results in a clear and meaningful way.
Have you faced such difficulty?
Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account structure were
modified?
If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you believe
such modification would be more useful both to your agency and to this
committee than the present structure?
How would such modification strengthen accountability for program
performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. We have not faced any difficulty in linking dollars and
results since we are using the samples under both the annual
performance plan and the budget structure. Therefore, there is no need
to change the budget account structure for AMS to improve the linkages.
Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
government functions; and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
perform these functions. Could you comment on your agency's cost
accounting expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. The AMS operated its own GAO approved cost accounting
system prior to merging the accounting function with NFC's accounting
system. This experience plus the voluntary user fee nature of nearly
three-quarters of the agency's funding provides us with a good
understanding of the costs to carry out our programs. Currently, we are
linking budget program activities to the goals in our annual
performance plan.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to
have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting. The clearly preferred
methodology for such a system, as stated in that standard, is the one
known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby the full cost is
calculated for each of the activities of an agency.
What is the status of your agency's implementation of the
Managerial Cost Accounting requirement, and are you using Activity-
Based Costing?
Will you be able in the future to show to this committee the full
and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including in those
calculations such items as administration, employee benefits, and
depreciation?
By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely the
relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs of
the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
activities?
Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each activity and
result?
To what extent do the dollars associated with any particular
performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated activities
performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead costs
fully allocated to goals?
Answer. The NFC's central accounting system does not currently have
a full cost accounting option, however, when AMS begins utilizing the
new Financial Foundation Information System in fiscal year 2002, this
function will be available. Despite the current data limitation, AMS
has structured its central accounting system general ledger so that we
can obtain account information by individual programs. Due to the
voluntary user fee nature of AMS' programs, we have allocated the
administrative and supervisory costs enabling us to determine the true
cost of activities carried out by the agency. All administrative and
overhead costs are fully allocated to the various budget activities.
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
the development of the agency's performance plan.
Answer. No regulatory reform measures have been put in place in AMS
in conjunction with the development of our performance plan.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 performance plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievement?
If so, what steps have you identified to prepare, anticipate, and
plan for such influences?
What impact might external factors have on your resource estimates?
Answer. We included a discussion of external factors in the
strategic plan. The discussion of performance goals in the performance
plan briefly mentions external factors that could influence goal
achievement for some of the agency's activities. AMS programs try to
anticipate and prepare for uncontrollable external factors such as
weather, economics, production levels, and consumer preference by
closely monitoring the agricultural industry and its environment.
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication? If so,
does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or duplication?
Answer. No, rather the plan process has helped us to understand the
complementary nature of our activities with others within and outside
the Department.
Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
and if so, how?
Answer. These issues are addressed in the ``Means and Strategies''
and ``Management Initiative'' sections of the performance plan.
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
guide decision making? Will this use increase in the future and if so,
in what ways?
Answer. Since most of AMS' programs are user fee based, management
has traditionally used the ``bottom line'' to determine if fees covered
costs and if customer requirements are being met. The performance
measure data has helped to increase the managers' understanding of
performance issues and the impact of agency activities on our
customers.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that:
To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature to
allow for these kinds of uses?
Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making estimates for
certain activities or lack of data that might affect the accuracy of
resource estimates?
Answer. As in the past, future funding decisions will be based on
both program performance and changing marketing structure. We believe
our performance measures are the best that are currently available to
reflect the accomplishment of our mission. We plan to periodically
reassess our performance measures to assure that they effectively
measure AMS performance and revise them when necessary.
Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements? Specifically, are you requesting any
relaxation of transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
accountability commitments?
Answer. No we are not requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 2000 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. The agency's strategic plan is currently being reviewed for
possible revision.
______
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ECONOMIST
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. The annual performance goals of the Office of the Chief
Economist (OCE) are directly linked to the agency's mission, strategic
goals, and program activities. OCE goals are compatible with the
program activity structure contained in the President's Budget. These
three strategic goals correspond to the three components of OCE's
mission which is to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on the economic
prospects in agricultural markets and the economic implications of
policies, programs and economic events affecting U.S. agriculture and
rural communities; to ensure the public has consistent, objective and
reliable agricultural forecasts; and to promote effective and efficient
rules governing Departmental programs. These goals are funded through a
single budget account.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities?
Answer. The process of linking OCE performance goals to its budget
activities was accomplished by establishing performance goals that were
developed to ensure OCE's ability to accomplish its delegated
responsibilities under the authority of the Federal Crop Insurance
Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, Public
Law 103-354. Funding levels were established to achieve these
performance goals, considering existing, as well as, new
responsibilities assigned to OCE by the Secretary, such as assuming
management and operation of the Office of Energy Policy and New Uses--
OEPNU--in fiscal year 1999.
Question. What difficulties, if any did you encounter, and what
lessons did you learn?
Answer. OCE is largely affected by events and external factors
beyond its control, such as the degree of analytical support provided
by other agencies and special, unforeseen projects as requested by the
Secretary and other policy officials within the Department and the
Executive Branch. The primary lesson learned is that OCE must develop
performance goals and targets that reflect these external factors and
develop strategies to ensure that OCE achieves its goals despite this
uncertainty.
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget?
Answer. Yes, OCE's Performance Plan links performance measures to
its budget. OCE's Performance Plan estimates funding and FTE levels for
each goal.
Question. Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. Yes, OCE has a single budget account that funds all of its
goals and performance measures.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Answer. OCE's performance planning structure does not differ from
the account and activity structure in its budget justification.
Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. No, OCE does not plan to propose any changes to the account
structure for fiscal year 2001.
Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
described under that account structure?
Answer. Yes, the program activities described under the current
account structure are increased in three general areas: biomass and
bioenergy research, risk analysis, and data management.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. Performance measures were chosen to enable OCE managers and
outside observers to track progress in accomplishing OCE's mission and
strategic goals, including new goals associated with expanded biomass
and bioenergy activities.
Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
Answer. OCE balanced the cost of data collections and verification
with the need for reliable and valid performance data by using low cost
data collection methods. Recorded performance data largely reflects
feedback from the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and other OCE clients
and customers, including surveys taken at the annual USDA Agricultural
Outlook Forum and public feedback at data users' meetings operated
jointly with the National Agricultural Statistics Service and the
Economic Research Service--ERS.
Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. No, our plan does not include performance measures for
which reliable data are not likely to be available in time for our
first performance report in March 2000.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
2000 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results?
Answer. We have three key strategic goals that the subcommittee
should use to track results through the annual performance goals and
measures provided for each.
Question. For each key annual goal, indicate whether you consider
it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measure (``how
well'').
Answer. All three of OCE's strategic goals are supported by outcome
measures. However, goals 2 and 3, which relate to products of the World
Agricultural Outlook Board--WAOB--and Office of Risk Assessment and
Cost Benefit Analysis--ORACBA--respectively, are measured by a mix of
output measures and outcome measures.
Question. State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and
objective from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is
linked.
Answer. The long-term general goals that appear in the Strategic
Plan are identical to the goals that appear in the annual performance
plans.
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. OCE undertook efforts to develop outcome measures that
provided a description of the intended result, effect, or consequence
that would occur from accomplishing the activity. Indicators were
developed to measure output and outcome in order to provide a
comprehensive view to managers and outside observers.
Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
Answer. The Chief Economist has addressed the distinction between
the concept of workload--output--from that of goals which measure
effectiveness--outcome--when providing direction to managers during the
development of the annual performance plans. Managers were aware of
this distinction when goals and indicators were developed for each
element of OCE. Even so, because OCE delivers information to decision
makers, it is very difficult and often impossible to link the outcome
of a policy or program decision or a private sector decision back to
information delivered to OCE.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
external customers.
Answer. Among the measures developed for determining satisfaction,
OCE developed measures of the Secretary's satisfaction with economic
information produced by OCE for incorporation into the Secretary's
decisions, communications, and interactions with other government
officials and the public because of its relevance, accuracy,
objectivity, and timeliness. OCE measures external customer
satisfaction by surveying attendees at USDA's outlook forum.
Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 2000
Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
Answer. Planned activities, funding requests, and performance goals
for the fiscal year 2001 budget were based on OCE's best estimate of
progress in the remainder of fiscal year 1999 and the goals for fiscal
year 2000.
Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by
this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact
the change would have on the level of program performance and the
achievement of various goals?
Answer. Yes, OCE would be able to estimate the impact of changes in
levels of funding for its performance goals. Because OCE's budget was
frozen in fiscal year 2000, little flexibility remains in resource
reallocation. Further freezes or cuts will directly affect OCE's
ability to attain its goals.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results?
Answer. Feedback regarding OCE performance is a continuous
activity. OCE has the capability of measuring and reporting performance
throughout the year on a regular basis so that the agency can be
properly managed to achieve desired results. The Chief Economist meets
weekly with key managers and quarterly with the Senior Executive
Service staff to review program operation and performance.
Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
Answer. OCE managers share their observations regarding OCE
performance among themselves and with staff on a continuous basis.
Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
performance-related data located throughout your various information
systems?
Answer. In most cases, OCE managers can gain access easily to
various performance-related data. Feedback comes from frequent contact
with its principal customers: the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and
other senior officials, and from public users of OCE information.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget. Many agencies have indicated that their
present budget account structure makes it difficult to link dollars to
results in a clear and meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty?
Answer. Budget structure has not caused OCE difficulty in linking
dollars in a clear and meaningful way.
Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
structure were modified?
Answer. No, we think linkages are clear enough to assess funding
changes and results.
Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
to this committee than the present structure?
Answer. OCE does not propose to modify the budget account
structure.
Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. OCE does not propose any modification at this time.
Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
government functions; and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
perform these functions. Could you comment on your agency's cost
accounting expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. Although the Department has some personnel with cost
accounting expertise, the Department's Chief Financial Officer has
recognized the need for a Department-wide effort to enhance cost
accounting expertise and $240,000 is included in the fiscal year 2001
President's Budget request to provide such leadership. Currently, we
are linking budget program activities to the goals in our annual
performance plan. Ultimately, with additional fiscal year 2001
resources and a better trained workforce, the Department will continue
to implement improvements in this area.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to
have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting. The clearly preferred
methodology for such a system, as stated in that standard, is the one
known as Activity-Based Costing, whereby the full cost is calculated
for each of the set activities of an agency. What is the status of your
agency's implementation of the Managerial Cost Accounting requirement,
and are you using Activity-Based Costing?
Answer. USDA is in compliance with FASAB's cost accounting
standards. The Department has identified responsibility segments, for
which financial statement reporting is provided, employing full cost
techniques that include unfunded pension and accrued annual leave,
Federal Employment Compensation Act accrued expenses, GSA rent,
depreciation, and other expense items that are appropriate. Currently,
the Department uses several costing techniques, including Activity-
Based Costing, that permit us to determine the cost of our strategic
goals and selected output activities.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
and depreciation?
Answer. The Department's current goal is to implement the
Foundation Financial Information System throughout all USDA agencies in
order to provide standardized accounting methodologies and improve data
integrity for management and reporting purposes for salaries and
expenses and administrative operations. As the Department improves its
basic accounting and reporting processes, it will be able to better
identify activities and outputs for unit costing and will evaluate the
various accounting methodologies available and incorporate the
appropriate methodology for the activity being costed.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spend on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. Yes, we strongly believe that effective implementation of
costing systems will vastly improve Federal planning, evaluation, and
reporting at all levels of the organization.
Question. Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each
activity and result?
Answer. As the Department implements activity based costing, it
will be able to provide unit costs for activities and results.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with any
particular performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. All OCE costs, including overhead, are associated with the
performance goals.
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
the development of the agency's performance plan.
Answer. OCE has not put any regulatory reform measures in place.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 performance plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievement?
Answer. Achievement of annual performance goals is contingent on a
number of external factors and our performance plan reflects this.
First, achievement is based on anticipated budget. If appropriations
differ substantially from these projections, achievement of the plan
would be affected. Second, OCE activity involves coordinating
information and analyses from a variety of other agencies. OCE staff
chair many interagency committees to achieve goals. To the extent that
other agencies alter their resource commitments to these activities,
plan achievement would be affected. Third, OCE workload depends
partially on legislative and government-wide regulatory activity over
which OCE has no control. Fluctuations in activity in these areas would
alter the distribution of resources across plan objectives. For
example, during fiscal year 2000, OCE has expended unexpected resources
on rule making activities related to organic agriculture and animal
product imports. Fourth, allocation of OCE resources and achievement of
the plan will also depend on developments in agricultural markets.
Question. If so, what steps have you identified to prepare,
anticipate and plan for such influences?
Answer. To prepare, anticipate, and plan for such influences, OCE
has acquired and maintained a highly experienced staff to manage
activities, plan and initiate response actions, and work closely with
the other agencies on which OCE is dependent for support so that OCE
has early warning of possible cutbacks in their support. However, if
the support provided by other agencies changed, OCE would have to
reallocate resources to continue to provide essential services. OCE has
no control over that portion of its responsibilities that are required
by legislative and government-wide regulatory activity. OCE's
capability to anticipate some market developments enables managers to
exercise some internal flexibility in shifting organizational resources
and in making the Secretary aware of the likelihood of these
developments.
Question. What impact might external factors have on your resource
estimates?
Answer. As indicated above, the impact on resource estimates
depends on which external factor is affected.
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication?
Answer. OCE has not identified any overlapping functions or program
duplication.
Question. If so, does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or
duplication?
Answer. OCE's has not identified any overlapping functions or
program duplication.
Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
and if so, how?
Answer. Duplication and overlapping functions, if they exist,
should be addressed in GPRA plans by eliminating them or clarifying
their purposes.
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
guide decision making?
Answer. The Chief Economist and managers developed an agency
strategic plan that facilitated setting long-term goals, prioritizing
accomplishments, and scheduling goal implementation. To facilitate
decision making, general goals and objectives were developed in the
strategic and performance plans which allowed assessment to be made
throughout the year on whether the goals were being achieved.
Question. Will this use increase in the future and if so in what
ways?
Answer. GPRA is increasingly being used as a planning tool by all
OCE managers. Strategic and performance plans have reinforced the
importance of paying particular attention to the service provided to
all customers and the need to correlate budget, goals, and results. As
managers' skills improve in refining strategic and performance plans to
reflect their priorities, goals, and progress, they will likely utilize
these planning tools.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that: To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
to allow for these kinds of uses?
Answer. Current OCE performance measures are sufficiently mature to
serve as a means for checking accountability on how efficiently funding
has been used and outcomes achieved. With the development of each
annual performance plan, OCE managers have added to their skills in
developing new measures and refining current indicators. OCE believes
that established measures are highly reliable given the process through
which they have been developed. This process has been highly iterative
in that performance goals and indicators have been examined and re-
examined through a series of reviews by OCE staff, managers, USDA's
Office of the Chief Financial Officer, other Department organizations,
OMB, and the Congress.
Question. Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making
estimates for certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the
accuracy of resource estimates?
Answer. As OCE is assigned new responsibilities, some degree of
inexperience is a factor that must be considered. For example, OCE
faced an unexpected level of responsibility for coordinating three
activities in fiscal year 1999. OCE assumed management of the OEPNU
previously located in ERS. OCE has major outreach and internal
responsibilities in operating the Global Change Program Office. OCE had
responsibility for advancing USDA's policies and principles relating to
small farms. This latter assignment followed from the Secretary's
decision to combine the tasks of OCE's Director of Sustainable
Development with small farms activities. Nonetheless, OCE managers met
the performance goals that were set for all three of these expanded OCE
areas of responsibility.
Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements?
Answer. OCE is not requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements at this time.
Question. Specifically, are you requesting any relaxation of
transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
accountability commitments?
Answer. OCE is not requesting any relaxation of transfer or
reprogramming controls in return for specific accountability
commitments.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 2000 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. The primary revision OCE is making in its strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997 is to incorporate OEPNU.
______
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
Question. How are the Agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. They are directly linked. The five functional components of
the Agency's budget structure (Pest and Disease Exclusion, Plant and
Animal Health Monitoring, Pest and Disease Management, Animal Care, and
Scientific and Technical Services) correspond to the five general goals
of the APHIS Strategic Plan. In its annual performance plan, APHIS has
developed a set of annual performance targets for each goal of its
strategic plan. The objectives listed under each goal in the annual
performance plan correspond directly to funded pest and disease
programs under each functional component of the budget.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities?
Answer. APHIS organized its strategic plan using the structure of
our budget as a pattern. The five functional components of the Agency's
budget structure (Pest and Disease Exclusion, Plant and Animal Health
Monitoring, Pest and Disease Management, Animal Care, and Scientific
and Technical Services) correspond to the five general goals of the
APHIS Strategic Plan. In its annual performance plan, APHIS has
developed a set of annual performance targets for each goal of its
strategic plan.
Question. What difficulties, if any, did you encounter, and what
lessons did you learn?
Answer. The design of our strategic plan along budget lines
eliminated any difficulties in linking performance goals to budget
activities.
Question. Does the Agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget?
Answer. Yes. The performance measures are organized by objectives
which correspond directly to funded pest and disease programs under
each functional component of the budget.
Question. Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. Yes, each account has performance measures. Treasury
accounts such as those associated with hazardous waste or buildings and
facilities are represented with performance measures for the pest and
disease programs, as the funds from those accounts are used to support
those programs.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Answer. Our performance planning structure was patterned after the
structure of the budget. It does not differ from the account and
activity structure.
Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2001? Answer. APHIS does not plan to propose
any changes to its account structure for fiscal year 2001. We do not
believe that changes to the account structure would significantly
improve linkage between resource amounts and performance goals.
Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
described under that account structure?
Answer. APHIS does not plan to propose any changes to the program
activities under its current account structure.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. Criteria used to choose useful performance measures
included how effectively the measure represented APHIS' degree of
success in achieving our goals and accomplishing our mission, the level
of reliability of the data reported for the measure, how completely we
could document the accuracy of the data, and whether the benefits of
the data collected outweighed the cost of collection.
Question. How did the Agency balance the cost of data collection
and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
Answer. For each proposed performance measure, APHIS determined the
cost of collecting the data required. We then compared this cost with
the benefits the measure offered towards illustrating our degree of
success in achieving our goals and data reliability and validity. In
some cases, the most valid and reliable method to measure program
performance was too costly, given the level of funding for the program.
In those cases, APHIS developed reasonable alternatives that were more
acceptable given the amount of resources available.
Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. Data was not available in time for a few of the measures
included in our fiscal year 1999 Annual Performance Report. When data
was not available, it was noted in the report.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
2000 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results? For each key annual goal, indicate whether
you consider it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome
measure (``how well''). State the long term (fiscal year 2003) general
goal and objective from the Agency Strategic Plan to which the annual
goal is linked.
Answer. APHIS managers included, in their Annual Performance Plans
and in their first Annual Performance Report, all of the key
performance goals that could prove useful to the subcommittee in
tracking the program results of our diverse agency. However, if it is
useful to narrow down our priorities further, we could make reference
to those key measures which APHIS selected for inclusion in USDA's
Annual Financial Statement, a document which summarizes the mission of
USDA and provides those key measures that the Secretary intends to use
to demonstrate effective and efficient program delivery in support of
USDA's strategic goals.
The performance goals from the USDA fiscal year 1999 Annual
Financial Statements are: (1) under APHIS' Strategic Goal to:
``Safeguard U.S. plant and animal resources against introductions of
foreign pests and diseases, while meeting international trade
obligations:'' (a) to minimize the number of fruit fly outbreaks in the
U.S. (outcome oriented) and (b) to increase the number and value of
agriculture products exported from the U.S. (a measure which is a
combination of output, since ``Number of sanitary/phytosanitary (SPS)
issues resolved'' is a target, and outcome, since the significance and
value to the U.S. of SPS issues resolved will also be discussed in an
accompanying report issued by APHIS; (2) Under APHIS' Strategic Goal to
``Effectively manage plant and animal pests and diseases and wildlife
damage which pose risks to agriculture, natural resources, or public
health:'' (a) to increase passenger safety by reducing the risk of
aircraft striking wildlife (an outcome oriented goal that will report
on the risk reduced at our nation's airports), (b) to eradicate
brucellosis (outcome oriented goal), and (c) to minimize the
introduction and establishment of foreign weeds in the U.S. (an outcome
oriented goal); and (3) under APHIS' Strategic Goal to ``Facilitate the
development of safe and effective veterinary biologics, biotechnology-
derived products, and other scientific methods for the benefit of
agricultural producers and consumers and to protect the health of
American agriculture,'' to ``Develop useful, appropriate methods'' (an
output oriented goal).
In addition to those measures in the Financial Statements, a few
others from the APHIS Revised fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001
Annual Performance Plans will prove useful in tracking APHIS' progress
in achieving its strategic goals 1 and 4, including: (1) under APHIS'
Strategic Goal to ``Safeguard U.S. Plant and animal resources against
introductions of foreign pests and diseases, while meeting
international trade obligations,'' ``To minimize the risk of exotic
pests and diseases introduced to the U.S.'' (an outcome oriented goal);
(2) under APHIS' Strategic Goal to ``Effectively manage plant and
animal pests and diseases and wildlife damage which pose risks to
agriculture, natural resources, or public health:'' (a) to eradicate
tuberculosis (outcome oriented) and (b) to eradicate pseudorabies
(outcome oriented); and (3) under APHIS' Strategic Goal to ``Ensure the
humane care and treatment of animals covered under the Animal Welfare
Act and the Horse Protection Act,'' ``To increase the percentage of
facilities in compliance'' (outcome oriented).
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your Agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. APHIS' planning and evaluation specialists, and APHIS'
budget analysts worked together to provide developmental and
consultative assistance to managers of all APHIS programs to assist
them in defining outcome oriented goals and measures.
Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
Answer. APHIS' budget and policy offices have worked hard to
provide guidance to program managers that describes the differences and
to develop formats for budget submissions and measurement development
that reinforce and encourage both types of measures. APHIS believes
that the traditional focus on ``outputs'' can continue to be relevant
and useful in decision making only insofar as various levels of outputs
are tracked and communicated in the context of the eventual outcomes
and results which are being achieved.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
external customers.
Answer. The Plant Protection and Quarantine Program tracks customer
satisfaction within the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection program. The
program measures the satisfaction level of international air travelers
and international travelers on land borders. APHIS' National Animal
Health Monitoring System, (NAHMS), includes a reporting process on the
health status of U.S. Livestock and poultry. Producers who participate
in these studies and/or receive the results of these studies have
traditionally been asked to evaluate whether the information being
provided is helpful to them in managing their operations, and this
practice will continue, since APHIS has a performance goal to report on
the ``percentage of surveyed producers using information from NAHMS.''
APHIS' Animal Care program plans to survey animal welfare organizations
this year to assess customer satisfaction with the program. APHIS'
Wildlife Services program commissioned the National Agricultural
Statistical Service, (NASS), to conduct a survey which could give them
a very complete picture of the satisfaction levels of livestock
producers who receive direct assistance from the program.
Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 2000
Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
Answer. Program performance as measured by the goals in APHIS'
Annual Performance Plan was a key factor in the development of the
fiscal year 2001 budget. For example, the success of the Brucellosis
Program as measured by the reduction in the number of infected herds
resulted in the decision to request a reduction in funding for that
line item in fiscal year 2001.
Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by
this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact
the change would have on the level of program performance and the
achievement of various goals?
Answer. APHIS will be able to report the effect of funding level
changes on program performance and our ability to achieve our goals.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the Agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results?
Answer. Being able to measure and report program performance on a
regular basis is a goal for all APHIS programs, but there are varying
degrees to which each program has been able to accomplish this goal
thus far. Two good examples for the rest of the agency reside in APHIS'
Plant Protection and Quarantine, (PPQ), and in APHIS' Animal Care
programs.
APHIS' PPQ program measures and reports program performance for
their AQI program throughout the year. The AQI Monitoring System
measures the amount of pest threat to U.S. agriculture by collecting
information on the efforts to monitor various pathways and the
commodities entering through them into the U.S. The information is then
used to explain and explore the characteristics of the various pathways
to assist in managing the risk they present to U.S. agriculture. These
data allow a more accurate estimation of approach rates for prohibited
agricultural items and cargo pests arriving at U.S. ports of entry and
compliance rates of international travelers, transportation companies,
and cargo customers. Approach rate refers to the ratio of quarantine
material approaching U.S. borders to the number of international
travelers or vehicles approaching U.S. borders.
Animal Care field employees have been creating inspection reports
at the conclusion of each inspection of a facility, and data from the
reports has been entered into the automated Licensing and Registration
Information System, (LARIS). LARIS has recently undergone a complete
redesign and upgrade, and now data for fiscal year 2000 will be entered
by field employees directly into the electronic database via laptops
and modems. Reports are being designed to enable program managers to
run summary reports quickly and easily. Reports will even be provided
to inspected facilities so that inspectors and regulated entities can
catch errors and correct them.
Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
Answer. APHIS seeks to provide access to performance information to
all levels of management. There are varying degrees to which each
program has been able to accomplish this goal thus far. APHIS' PPQ and
Animal Care programs illustrate the progress APHIS has made.
All levels of the agency have access to and use the data and
information generated from the AQI monitoring system. Local work
locations use the results to verify the risk of various entry pathways
and to shift resources to activities that are most effective in
managing risks. State and regional offices use the results to assess
the relative risks of various entry pathways and locations. At a
national level, the information is used to assess risk, redesign
regulations and operations, and justify budget requests. In the near
future, Animal Care's LARIS information will be available to lower,
mid, and upper level managers.
Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
performance-related data located throughout your various information
systems?
Answer. APHIS is in the process of improving access to the various
sources of performance information used throughout the Agency. APHIS'
PPQ and Animal Care programs illustrate the progress the Agency has
made. Program personnel gain access easily to the data housed in the
AQI system. Soon, information from Animal Care's LARIS system will also
be easily accessible.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your Agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget. Many agencies have indicated that their
present budget account structure makes it difficult to link dollars to
results in a clear and meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty?
Answer. APHIS has not faced any difficulties in linking dollars to
results in a clear and meaningful way. Our goals and objectives are
structured to mirror the organization of our budget.
Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
structure were modified?
Answer. We do not believe that changes to the budget account and
activity structure would significantly improve the linkage between
resource amounts and the results of our performance.
Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
believe such modification would be more useful both to your Agency and
to this committee than the present structure?
Answer. We do not believe that it is necessary to modify the budget
account structure.
Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. We do not believe that it is necessary to modify the budget
account structure.
Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
government functions; and (2) how to allocate Agency resources to
perform these functions. Could you comment on your Agency's cost
accounting expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. Although the Department has some personnel with cost
accounting expertise, the Department's Chief Financial Officer has
recognized the need for a Department-wide effort to enhance cost
accounting expertise and $240,000 is included in the fiscal year 2001
President's Budget request to provide such leadership. Currently, we
are linking budget program activities to the goals in our annual
performance plan. Ultimately, with additional fiscal year 2001
resources and a better trained workforce, the Department will continue
to implement improvements in this area.
Question. Under one of the new accounting methods standards
recommended by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB)
and issued by OMB, this year for the first time all Federal agencies
are required to have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting. The
clearly preferred methodology for such a system, as stated in that
standard, is the one known as ``Activity-Based Costing'', whereby the
full cost is calculated for each of the activities of an Agency. What
is the status of your Agency's implementation of the Managerial Cost
Accounting requirement, and are you using Activity-Based costing?
Answer. USDA is in compliance with FASAB's cost accounting
standards. The Department has identified responsibility segments, for
which financial statement reporting is provided, employing full cost
techniques that include unfunded pension and accrued leave, Federal
Employment Compensation Act accrued expenses, GSA rent, depreciation,
and other expense items that are appropriate. Currently, the Department
uses several costing techniques, including Activity-Based Costing, that
permit us to determine the cost of our strategic goals and selected
output activities.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
and depreciation?
Answer. The Department's current goal is to implement the
Foundation Financial Information System throughout all USDA agencies in
order to provide standardized accounting methodologies and improve data
integrity for management and reporting purposes for salaries and
expenses and administrative operations. As the Department improves its
basic accounting and reporting processes, it will be able to better
identify activities and outputs for unit costing and will evaluate the
various accounting methodologies available and incorporate the
appropriate methodology for the activity being costed.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. Yes, we strongly believe that effective implementation of
costing systems will vastly improve Federal planning, evaluation, and
reporting at all levels of the organization.
Question. Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each
activity and result?
Answer. As the Department implements activity based costing, it
will be able to provide unit costs for activities and results.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with any
particular performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. The dollars associated with specific Agency performance
goals are limited by total available funding which consists of
appropriated funds and projected funding from other sources. In the
current budget era, APHIS has had to turn more frequently to its
partners either at other levels of government, in other agencies, or in
private industry to help support its goals. Increases in cooperative
agreements, user fees, and other ``fee for service'' opportunities have
helped narrow the gap between diminishing federal funds and true costs
to run agency programs, but there are times when the gap still exists.
Opportunity costs are often incurred by the agricultural community
as well, and they are not necessarily captured in the dollar amounts
reported by APHIS for each performance goal.
APHIS does not have a separate line item for overhead costs. The
dollars associated with specific performance goals include overhead
costs.
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your Agency in conjunction with
the development of the Agency's performance plan.
Answer. There have been no significant regulatory reform measures
put in place by APHIS in conjunction with the development of the
Agency's performance plan.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 performance plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievement?
Answer. Based on GAO feedback that it was important to identify
external factors that might influence program results, APHIS identified
relevant external factors in many of its performance goal discussions
in the Annual Performance Plan, particularly under the ``Means and
Strategies'' sections of the plan.
Question. If so, what steps have you identified to prepare,
anticipate, and plan for such influences?
Answer. Where additional resources could potentially be necessary
to mitigate particular external factors, this was also mentioned in the
plan.
Question. What impact might external factors have on your resource
estimates?
Answer. External factors can have a large influence on resource
estimates. For example, in many areas APHIS works toward achieving its
goals cooperatively with local, State, and foreign governments. The
extent to which these entities participate and contribute funding
towards successfully reaching our joint goals has a great deal of
influence on APHIS' resource estimates.
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
Agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication?
Answer. APHIS has not identified overlapping functions or program
duplication through the development of the Annual Performance Plan.
Question. If so, does the plan identify the overlap or duplication?
Answer. APHIS has not identified overlapping functions or program
duplication through the development of the Annual Performance Plan.
Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
and if so, how?
Answer. Management challenges are addressed in the Management
Initiatives section of APHIS' Annual Performance Plan. We do not
address potential duplication and overlapping functions as none were
identified in the process of developing the plan.
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by Agency leadership to
guide decision making?
Answer. In meeting the requirements of the GPRA to conduct
strategic planning, performance planning, and to report on results,
APHIS managers throughout the Agency have been devoting an
unprecedented amount of attention and effort toward defining goals and
determining the best ways to measure and report on true program
outcomes. Agency leaders find themselves with a greater platform of
measurement information that they can use for decisionmaking purposes.
The Administrator has been able to better support decisions to invest
in one area over another based on program results that are desired or
program needs to enhance information systems and other infrastructure
support that is essential to achieve important goals.
Question. Will this use increase in the future and, if so, in what
ways?
Answer. In the near future, the revision of APHIS' strategic plan
will give all agency leaders the opportunity to update agency-level
priorities and to engage agency employees in helping to identify
information needs that will assist them in making more informed program
decisions.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that: To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
to allow for these kinds of uses?
Answer. For the past few years, APHIS' performance measures have
steadily improved as we travel along the learning curve for the GPRA
process. We believe that our measures are useful for decision making.
As time passes and we gain experience, we look forward to improving
their utility.
Question. Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making
estimates for certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the
accuracy of resource estimates?
Answer. Several factors affect the accuracy of resource estimates.
They include the level of funding available for developing and
improving data measurement systems and the fact that GPRA is relatively
new and we are still on the learning curve. For new initiatives and
activities within our programs there is always a period of analysis to
determine the best way to measure performance and the most effective
and cost efficient data gathering method. It also takes time to set
realistic baselines. In the early stages of performance measure
development for a new initiative, resource estimates may be less
accurate.
Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements?
Answer. APHIS is not requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements.
Question. Specifically, are you requesting any relaxation of
transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
accountability requirements?
Answer. APHIS is not requesting any relaxation of transfer or
reprogramming controls in return for specific accountability
requirements.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 2000 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. APHIS intends to revise its strategic plan. The need for
revisions is based partly on new issues which are reflected in APHIS'
fiscal year 2000/2001 performance plan, and partly on the need to allow
newly appointed leaders of various APHIS programs to contribute their
thoughts and expertise to the revision of the strategic direction of
the agency. Given that the performance plan is organized by objective
and program line items, the strategic plan can re-articulate trends and
issues in a more macro/global sense, tying together the past, present,
and future in a different format that discusses current cross cutting
themes and describes progress the Agency has made since the last
strategic plan.
______
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. The ARS Annual Performance Plan parallels the structure of
the ARS Strategic Plan, which was developed to meet the requirements of
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. In the Annual
Performance Plan, the Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Performance
Goals are linked to specific accomplishments that the Agency expects to
achieve in fiscal year 2001 with the funds requested. All the
activities identified in the Strategic and Performance Plans link
directly to the Mission Statement which, in turn, directly reflects the
statutory authorities that underpin the Agency's work. A crosswalk is
shown for each of the five Goals and for Initiative 2 linking program
activities to the budget request. The Annual Performance Report has a
parallel structure and highlights significant accomplishments for
fiscal year 1999.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities?
Answer. ARS carries out its research through over 1,100 Current
Research Information System (CRIS) research projects which are aligned
with the 6 Budget objectives, 23 National Programs and the 5 Goals of
the Strategic and Performance Plans. The CRIS research projects are the
primary level of funding and accountability and provide the linkage
essential to crosswalk this information.
Question. What difficulties, if any, did you encounter, and what
lessons did you learn?
Answer. GPRA requires us to anticipate the longer-term outcomes and
impacts of our work, which is more difficult in a research environment
than it is in many other areas. Several years ago we developed a
performance plan based on numerical metrics. We counted the number of
scientific papers published in journals, licenses granted, CRADAs, and
patent applications. This approach, while fully complying with the
letter of GPRA, did not begin to meet the spirit of the law. In fact,
providing this numerical data conveyed little meaningful information to
Congress or our customers and stakeholders on the significant work of
the Agency. In January 1998, ARS requested a waiver from OMB to allow
us to use the narrative alternative approach provided for in GPRA. In
the last several years, we have structured the Annual Performance Plan
around narrative indicators that describe anticipated accomplishments
which will, if achieved, demonstrate progress towards the Strategic
Plan's goals and objectives.
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget?
Answer. Yes, the funding resources are identified at the level of
the 5 Agency Goals and Initiative 2, which relates to the work of the
National Agricultural Library.
Question. Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. No. The budget is presented to Congress in the traditional
accounting structure that has been used for many years. The ARS
Strategic Plan 1997-2003, the Annual Performance Plan, and the Annual
Performance Report are all structured around the five REE-wide General
Goals. The Performance Goals are contained in the Strategic Plan and
progress is reported in the Annual Performance Report. There is a
crosswalk at the General Goal level which is the only linkage between
the budget accounts and the performance measures.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Answer. There are substantial differences between the ARS Strategic
and Performance planning structure, our National Programs and the
Program Activity structure contained in the Budget. The budget activity
structure is presented on the following areas: Soil, Water, and Air
Sciences; Plant Sciences; Animal Sciences; Commodity Conversion and
Delivery; Human Nutrition; the Integration of Agricultural Systems, and
Agricultural Information and Library Services. The Strategic Plan is
outcome oriented and includes the following 5 broad societal Outcomes:
An agricultural production system that is highly competitive in the
global economy; A safe and secure food and fiber system; A healthy,
well nourished population; An agricultural system which protects
natural resources and the environment; Enhanced economic opportunity
and quality of life for Americans. In addition, three management
initiatives, which includes the National Agricultural Library, are
identified in the Strategic Annual Performance Plans.
Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. No, the Agency will continue to present its budget through
the Program Activity Structure. This accounting system tracks each
project to ensure compliance with appropriations measures and
Congressional reports. The CRIS project system provides a linkage to
the major planning and financial systems utilized by the Agency.
Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
described under that account structure?
Answer. No, we have no current plans to change the accounting
structure.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. The Performance Goals used in the Annual Performance Plans
and Report are taken directly from the ARS Strategic Plan. The
Indicators of Progress for each Performance Goal in the Annual
Performance Plans and Report, that accompany the fiscal year 2001
budget, were developed by the National Program Staff. Input was
obtained from each of the National Program Leaders who, in consultation
with the key Research Leaders and Lead Scientists, identified the
performance indicators.
Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
Answer. ARS has various mechanisms in place to retrieve financial
and programmatic data on all aspects of its research program. Two years
ago we substantially revised the annual CRIS project reporting
requirements in part to better support the data needs of GPRA and the
National Programs. At the present time, a committee is reviewing the
revised format and process to see if it needs further refinement. We do
not anticipate that the cost of data collection needed to validate
future performance will be much greater than current costs.
Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. Across the five programmatic goals we have identified
scores of indicators, that can be tracked and reported by the National
Program Staff. Accomplishing these performance indicators will clearly
demonstrate progress towards achieving the Goals and Objectives
identified in the ARS Strategic Plan. In fact, ARS submitted an Annual
Performance Report for fiscal year 1998 in March of 1999, a full year
ahead of the statutory requirement. We are still developing some of the
performance measures under Initiative 3, Creative Leadership, but we
expect to have most of these indicators in place to meet the March 2000
reporting date.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
2000 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results?
Answer. Measuring performance in research provides some unique
challenges that may not exist in other programs. The approach used in
the fiscal year 2000 ARS Annual Performance Plans is to identify, under
each Performance Goal, intermediate outcomes (indicators) that are
tangible and measurable. If ARS achieves all or most of these
indicators, it will be a clear demonstration of progress towards
meeting the longer-term Strategies, Objectives, and Goals in the
Strategic Plan 1997-2002. We would recommend that the subcommittee
track the performance goals under the 5 programmatic Goals: Goal I:
Through Research and Education, Empower the Agricultural System with
Knowledge that Will Improve Competitiveness in Domestic Production,
Processing, and Marketing. Goal II: To Ensure an Adequate Food Supply
and Improved Detection, Surveillance, Prevention, and Educational
Programs for the American Public's Health, Safety and Well-Being. Goal
III: A Healthy and Well-Nourished Population Who Have Knowledge,
Desire, and Means to Make Health Promoting Choices. Goal IV: To Enhance
the Quality of the Environment through Better Understanding of and
Building on Agriculture's and Forestry's Complex Links with Soil,
Water, Air, and Biotic Resources. Goal V: Empower People and
Communities, Through Research-based Information and Education, to
Address the Economic and Social Challenges of Our Youth, Families, and
Communities.
Question. For each key annual goal, indicate whether you consider
it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measure (``how
well'').
Answer. Several years ago ARS developed its Annual Performance Plan
around ``output'' measures such as the number of scientific papers
published in peer review journals, the number of patent applications
pending, and so forth. Based in large part on the consensus that this
use of numeric metrics told the reader very little about the substance
of the Agency's research accomplishments, OMB granted a waiver and
allowed ARS to use the alternative narrative approach provided in the
statute. Except for a few Performance Goals in the areas of technology
transfer and creative management, all of the other General Goals,
Objectives, Strategies, and Performance Goals measure outcomes. These
outcomes are tangible accomplishments that demonstrate progress to
achieving the General Goals and Objectives.
Question. State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and
objective from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is
linked.
Answer. The five General Goals in the ARS Strategic Plan can be
viewed in both the long-term or short-term. In addition, ARS
incorporated the ``Purposes of Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education'' from section 801 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 into its Strategic Plan as Objectives. Below the
Objectives are a number of Strategies and Performance Goals. The fiscal
year 2000-2001 Annual Performance Plans contain the same organizing
matrix (General Goals, Objectives, Strategies, and Performance Goals)
as does the ARS Strategic Plan. The fiscal year 2001 budget request is
linked by crosswalks to the General Goals of the Strategic Plan. The
Annual Performance Plans, that will soon be transmitted to Congress,
contain indicators (anticipated accomplishments) for fiscal year 2000-
2001 that can be achieved with base funding. The fiscal year 2001 plan
also identifies activities that will be initiated or expanded with the
new funds requested in the President's budget.
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. Because of the unique nature of research, ARS uses the
narrative approach provided under a waiver in GPRA to measure and
report the outcomes of its work. One or more narrative indicators of
progress is developed for each performance goal. Successfully achieving
these indicators demonstrates progress towards achieving each goal.
Specifically, ARS identified approximately 240 performance indicators
for fiscal year 2000 and 275 performance indicators for fiscal year
2001 in the Annual Performance Plans. In the fiscal year 1999 Annual
Performance Report, ARS reported progress against approximately 200
performance indicators under 75 performance goals. As we have gained
experience in implementing the GPRA performance and reporting
processes, we have become better able to identify meaningful
performance goals and indicators that reflect the special needs of a
research agency.
Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
Answer. Yes, the Agency's senior managers are fully aware of the
difference in output and outcome. This information has been delivered
through a number of meetings, briefings, and written instructions. The
message that the Agency's focus is on tangible outcomes and
accomplishments that have a real benefit to our customers and
stakeholders is repeated at all appropriate forums.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
external customers.
Answer. ARS has a long history of positive interaction with its
customers and stakeholders but a formal process of more systematically
measuring customer satisfaction is still evolving. Some components,
such as the National Agricultural Library and the National Arboretum,
periodically survey their users and visitors to measure and improve the
quality of their services and general satisfaction. The Administrative
and Financial Management units regularly measure customer satisfaction
from the agencies and components they support. The National Programs
Staff surveys the participants of National Program planning workshops
in order to measure the effectiveness of that process in gaining input
from our customers and stakeholders.
Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 2000
Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000-2001 Annual Performance Plans and the
fiscal year 2001 budget were developed on parallel tracks with
crosswalks showing the linkages.
Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by
this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact
the change would have on the level of program performance and the
achievement of various goals?
Answer. Yes. The version of the fiscal year 2000-2001 Annual
Performance Plans currently before the subcommittee reflects the
President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2001. Once the
appropriations process is completed, ARS will revise the Annual
Performance Plans to show the level of program performance that can be
expected with the actual level of resources that are appropriated.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results?
Answer. ARS, in part in response to GPRA, revised the type and
amount of data which it requests from each research unit. This enhanced
data collection has helped the National Program Staff and the Area
Offices to better monitor and manage the research program. We are
currently reviewing the reporting process. To avoid an undue burden on
the research leaders, we plan to collect most of the data on an annual
basis, rather than at multiple times during the year.
Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
Answer. Almost all of the reporting information from the ARS
research programs is collected electronically on an annual basis by the
Agency's Research Management Information System. That information is
widely available at all levels in ARS. The material is reviewed and
summarized by the National Program Staff for inclusion in the Annual
Performance Plans and Reports, the National Program Annual Reports, the
Explanatory Notes, and for other purposes as needed. Much of this
information is also available to the general public on the ARS homepage
(www.ars.usda.gov).
Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
performance-related data located throughout your various information
systems?
Answer. Yes, but data collection for GPRA reporting using the
alternative narrative approach is more difficult than it would be if we
were using numerical metrics. As we have gained experience with GPRA
and revised the CRIS project reporting format and process we have made
the task easier.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget. Many agencies have indicated that their
present budget account structure makes it difficult to link dollars to
results in a clear and meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty?
Answer. This Agency will not have any difficulty linking dollars to
results. As stated, ARS CRIS research projects underpin budget and
program activities and the goals/outcomes as established under GPRA.
The over 1,100 research projects are the bases for allocating and
accounting for the Agency's research funds. This is the principal level
of fiscal accountability in this Agency and this information can be
cross-walked or translated into the other systems of programmatic
management and accountability.
Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
structure were modified?
Answer. No. The existing budget account structure does not need to
be modified.
Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
to this committee than the present structure?
Answer. The Agency's CRIS projects are the accountability unit and
aggregate and crosswalk to the major program, budget, management and
review systems.
Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. There is no need to modify the existing accountability
systems for budget activities.
Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
government functions; and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
perform these functions. Could you comment on your agency's cost
accounting expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. Although the Department has some personnel with cost
accounting expertise, the Department's Chief Financial Officer has
recognized the need for a Department-wide effort to enhance cost
accounting expertise and $240,000 is included in the fiscal year 2001
President's Budget request to provide such leadership. Currently, we
are linking budget program activities to the goals in our annual
performance plan. Ultimately, with additional fiscal year 2001
resources and a better trained workforce, the Department will continue
to implement improvements in this area.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to
have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting. The clearly preferred
methodology for such a system, as stated in that standard, is the one
known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby the full cost is
calculated for each of the activities of an agency. What is the status
of your agency's implementation of the Managerial Cost Accounting
requirement, and are you using Activity-Based Costing?
Answer. USDA is in compliance with FASAB's cost accounting
standards. The Department has identified responsibility segments, for
which financial statement reporting is provided, employing full cost
techniques that include unfunded pension and accrued annual leave,
Federal Employment Compensation Act accrued expenses, GSA rent,
depreciation, and other expense items that are appropriate. Currently,
the Department uses several costing techniques, including Activity-
Based Costing, that permit us to determine the cost of our strategic
goals and selected output activities.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
and depreciation.
Answer. The Department's current goal is to implement the
Foundation Financial Information System throughout all USDA agencies in
order to provide standardized accounting methodologies and improve data
integrity for management and reporting purposes for salaries and
expenses and administrative operations. As the Department improves its
basic accounting and reporting processes, it will be able to better
identify activities and outputs for unit costing and will evaluate the
various accounting methodologies available and incorporate the
appropriate methodology for the activity being costed.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the programs, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. Yes, we strongly believe that effective implementation of
costing systems will vastly improve Federal planning, evaluation, and
reporting at all levels of the organization.
Question. Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each
activity and result?
Answer. As the Department implements activity based costing, it
will be able to provide unit costs for activities and results.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with any
particular performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. A basic tenet of ARS' financial management and budget
execution process is that the specific research project or activity
capture both direct and indirect costs attributable to the research.
Indirect costs, such as utilities, security, facility maintenance,
administrative, etc., are allocated to the various projects based on
approved cost accounting standards. The summary costs for ARS' goals
and objectives therefore include a share of the distributed indirect
costs.
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
the development of the agency's performance plan.
Answer. ARS research may be used as the basis for regulations
issued by other agencies but the Agency does not issue regulations.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 performance plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievement?
Answer. The Annual Performance Plan does not refer to external
factors but the working version of the ARS Strategic Plan 1997-2002,
which is available as a publication and on the ARS Homepage
(ars.usda.gov), contains the following discussion of the external
factors that impact on ARS:
Consumer, Socio-Economic, and Policy Trends.--The abundance and
affordability of the American food supply is greatly due to U.S.
agricultural research. The Nation's ability to sustain this plentiful
and inexpensive food supply continues to be paramount. But in recent
years, consumer and producer attention has expanded somewhat to other
areas of concern such as food safety and quality, the relationship of
agriculture and the environment, the profitability of the agricultural
enterprise, and the impact of government regulations, land use
restrictions, and economic options that diminish the supply of farm and
grazing land. The long-term sustainability of the Nation's food and
fiber production systems will be determined not only by the continued
profitability of farming and ranching, but also by how these production
systems affect the environment. The capacity of U.S. agriculture to
adapt to environmental changes is also a concern, as are the
availability and quality of natural resources. Another key
environmental issue is how human activities affect weather patterns,
atmospheric composition, and soil and water quality and productivity.
Global population increases, demographic changes, and economic growth
will substantially increase the demand for agricultural products and
lead to the development of new markets. At the same time, increased
agricultural efficiency in other countries will force U.S. agriculture
to be more competitive.
Funding.--The ability of ARS to respond to the many and diverse
needs of producers and consumers is determined by annual
appropriations.
1996 Farm Bill and the Pending Revision of the Research Title.--The
1996 Farm Bill, the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act, set
a new direction for American agriculture by beginning the process of
phasing out farm subsidy payments based on production levels and
introducing free market disciplines. The effect of this legislation
will be to heighten the importance of agricultural research as one form
of a safety net beneath producers. Research to maintain and improve
productivity; to detect, control, and eradicate diseases and pests
(insects, weeds, etc.); and to promptly address nontariff trade
barriers, especially sanitary and phytosanitary conditions will take on
even greater importance in a global market. The 1996 Farm Bill also
updated and expanded the ``Purposes of Agricultural Research'' which
were first enacted in 1990. As described elsewhere in these responses,
ARS incorporated the Purposes into this strategic plan adopting them as
the agency's objectives. Congressional reauthorization of the Research
Title will have an impact on ARS, but we are still too early in the
legislative process to anticipate what that impact will be.
Competition.--The Department of Labor projects an increase of 19
percent in the size of the general workforce in the next decade, which
is slightly lower than the rate of growth for the preceding decade. The
labor market during this period is also expected to be highly
competitive for many occupations that require an advanced education,
including scientists, engineers, economists, and computer specialists.
The high earning potential of professions, such as law and medicine,
will continue to make a career in science less attractive to many young
men and women who have the creative intelligence needed for
professional success in agricultural research. Consequently, a major
emphasis on recruitment, student employment, upward mobility, and
training programs will be needed to attract and retain a quality
workforce. The trend toward increasing workforce diversity is also
expected to continue, and opportunities for encouraging women and
minorities into careers in science, engineering, and economics will
need to be given a high priority.
Question. If so, what steps have you identified to prepare,
anticipate and plan for such influences?
Answer. External factors were not explicitly addressed in the
fiscal year 2000-2001 ARS Annual Performance Plans. However, an in-
depth examination of the major external factors affecting American
agriculture was part of the Agency's strategic planning process and the
process for developing the new National Programs. The five Vision
Conferences are a specific example of how ARS identified and considered
external factors in its strategic and programmatic planning processes.
The visioning process consisted of a pilot conference in January 1995,
followed by five regional conferences held in June and July of 1995.
The conferences brought together over 400 participants, representing a
broad cross section of the Agency's customers, stakeholders, and
partners, who worked in more than 30 breakout groups to provide input
that was used to develop the ARS Strategic Plan 1997-2002. ARS is
continuing to actively engage a wide-range of customers, stakeholders,
and partners in developing its new National Programs. All 1,100+ CRIS
projects have been aggregated into 23 National Programs. One or more
National Program workshops, involving customers, stakeholders and
partners has been or will be held for each program to ensure the
relevancy of the research agenda in each National Program.
Question. What impact might external factors have on your resource
estimates?
Answer. The most important and direct external factor identified in
the ARS Strategic Plan is the level of Congressional support for the
Agency's research activities. Other key external factors include the
heightened concern about the impact of agriculture on the environment,
concerns about food safety, and the impact of global population growth
and economic changes on American agriculture and the research
priorities needed to sustain it. All of these concerns have been taken
into consideration in developing the research agendas for the National
Programs. In addition, changes in the American workforce may also
impact ARS' ability to attract and retain the wide range of skilled
individuals needed to meet the agricultural research needs of the next
century.
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication?
Answer. No. In managing the ARS research program, the National
Program Staff seeks to avoid unnecessary duplication while ensuring
coordination between research units and locations. Agricultural
research must be conducted at different locations to account for
climatic, regional, and geographic variations as well as different
combinations of pests, diseases, and agricultural products, each with
specialized problems calling for unique research approaches and
solutions. The development and implementation of the new National
Program structure have further strengthened the multi-disciplinary,
multi-location focus of ARS research.
Question. If so, does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or
duplication?
Answer. In developing the Annual Performance Plan we did not find
any areas of program duplication.
Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
and if so, how?
Answer. When the Research, Education, and Economics (REE) Agencies
met with key Congressional Staff members during the consultation
process we came away with the strong impression that our strategic
plans should focus primarily on programmatic issues. In the REE mission
area, ARS' Administrative and Financial Management (AFM) component
provides support to all four REE Agencies and to the Offices of the
Under Secretary. AFM has developed its own internal strategic plan,
established performance measures, and it regularly measures customer
satisfaction. We are not aware of specific issues of duplication that
would need to be addressed in the ARS Strategic Plan.
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
guide decision making?
Answer. In response to GPRA, the ARS senior leadership decided to
make a number of major changes in the way we manage the Agency's
research program. The over 1,100 CRIS research projects were aggregated
into 23 National Programs which are focused on solving high priority
national problems confronting American agriculture. Reflecting the
influence of GPRA, the National Programs are designed to have a strong
and on-going interaction with their customers and stakeholders. In
addition, the National Program structure focuses the research units on
the ultimate outcomes or impacts of their work. Through the mechanism
of the Annual Performance Plans and Reports ARS projects future
accomplishments for the purpose of establishing programmatic
accountability.
Question. Will this use increase in the future and if so in what
ways?
Answer. Yes, as the implementation of the National Programs
continues, the GPRA principles will become more firmly established
within the Agency's culture.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that: To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
to allow for these kinds of uses?
Answer. In our working version of our Strategic Plan we discuss the
difficulty of predicting the ultimate outcome of research and the near
impossibility of applying numerical measures to research, especially
basic research. Having said that, we are confident that the use of a
large number of tangible intermediate outcomes (indicators) will enable
the subcommittee to determine whether ARS is making reasonable progress
towards reaching the goals and objectives identified in the Strategic
and Performance Plans.
Question. Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making
estimates for certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the
accuracy of resource estimates?
Answer. The great unpredictability of research, particularly its
unanticipated benefits, makes it extremely difficult for scientists to
formally offer predictions for fear they will engender unrealistic
expectations. Predicting what problems will need to be addressed, how
to reasonably measure on-going research, how best to express ``future''
research accomplishments, and how to accurately align resources to
produce out year research results are all areas where we lack
experience. As we work our way through several planning and reporting
cycles, we will gain the experience we need to more meaningfully adapt
GPRA to the ARS research environment.
Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements?
Answer. No, we have no plans to ask for such waivers at this time.
Question. Specifically, are you requesting any relaxation of
transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
accountability commitments?
Answer. No, we have no current plans to do so.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 2000 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. We did not identify issues in developing the Annual
Performance Plans for fiscal year 2000-2001 that would require
substantive revisions in the Agency's Strategic Plan. GPRA, however,
requires a review and revision of the Strategic Plan this year. Since
the Strategic Plan 1997-2002 was developed, ARS has substantially
revised the way we manage our research program. ARS, in reviewing its
Strategic Plan, is planning to reflect its new National Program
structure in the revised plan and will also consider any revisions in
the REE mission area 5-year strategic plan.
______
DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. The Departmental Administration (DA) performance goals
directly reflect the agency mission and strategic goals and objectives.
Budget requests are developed and reviewed in the same structure as the
goals and objectives and each activity justified in the Budget is
identified with a specific performance goal.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities? What difficulties, if any,
did you encounter, and what lessons did you learn?
Answer. During the budget formulation process, DA managers are
asked to identify how their budget proposals would contribute to the
accomplishment of performance objectives in each area. The budget
justifications published for the Congress identify specifically what
goal and objective is supported by each budget request. Because the
organization, performance goals and the budget material are aligned, we
did not encounter any difficulty in tying our budget request to our
performance goals.
We have tried to identify key performance indicators in each of the
major functional areas and link them to the resources used. Although
``outcomes'' such as percent yearly increase in contract set-asides for
small and disadvantaged business can easily be seen as related to the
level of program effort in the small business program, other measures
such as the reduction in utility use is harder to relate to specific
program activities.
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget? Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. DA Staff Offices carry out many varied activities,
therefore the appropriations each have several performance measures.
The Performance Plan shows resources being applied to achieve goals and
measures related to each account.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification? Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2001? Will you propose any changes to the
program activities described under that account structure?
Answer. The DA performance planning structure is the same as the
organizational and budget justification structure. For fiscal year
2001, we have proposed no major changes either to the performance
planning or major activity structure. We have made some minor
organizational changes to enhance operational performance in a few
areas.
Question. How were performance measures chosen? How did the agency
balance the cost of data collection and verification with the need for
reliable and valid performance data? Does your plan include performance
measures for which reliable data are not likely to be available in time
for your first Performance Report in March 2000?
Answer. Our performance measures were chosen as the best
quantifiable measures of the ``outcomes'' in each of our major
functional areas. Where ``outcome'' data was unavailable or not
quantifiable, reliable output data was used. We found that reliable
data were available in time for the first Performance Report. In all
cases, the collection of accomplishment data was achieved well within
the normal cost of managing the programs.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
2000 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results? For each key annual goal, indicate whether
you consider it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome
measure (``how well''). State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general
goal and objective from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual
goal is linked.
Answer. Because DA is composed of so many varied responsibilities,
it would be difficult to select a few performance measures to track the
overall program result. In the most basic terms, our success depends
upon our being able to provide the USDA headquarters and the program
agencies with adequate work space and services for them to carry out
their program responsibilities.
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. Measures of ``outcome'' were used in our performance
indicators wherever possible. However, one of the most important goals,
that all USDA employees and customers are treated fairly and equitably
with dignity and respect, cannot be measured empirically. In cases
where outcome measures are not possible, the measures of output such as
``backlog of complaints'' and ``employees trained'' are still very
valuable. We have used the best measures we can to ensure that the
goals and objectives are vigorously pursued and that the managers are
held accountable.
Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
Answer. During the strategic planning process, the nature of
``outcome'' and ``output'' measures was rigorously examined. I believe
it is well understood by managers and key personnel at all levels of
the organization.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
external customers?
Answer. At the present time, the only measure related to customer
satisfaction used in our performance planning process is the number of
buildings and facility complaints. Customer surveys, for both internal
and external customers, are being considered in certain areas as a
program management tool.
Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 2000
Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by this committee,
will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact the change would
have on the level of program performance and the achievement of various
goals?
Answer. Consideration of the performance goals was an important
part of the budget formulation process. Budget proposals such as
Alternative Dispute Resolution were a direct result of our seeking ways
to meet our objectives in the civil rights program to reduce formal
complaints and decrease the time to settle complaints. Many of the
performance goals respond directly to changes in the Budget. For
example, objectives like reducing customer building customer
complaints, reduced use of utilities and rental office space depend
solely on our ability to obtain funding for the Agricultural South
Building Renovation. However, making specific quantifiable projections
of performance indicators would be a challenge.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results? If so, who has access to the information--senior management
only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too? Are you able to
gain access easily to various performance-related data located
throughout your various information systems?
Answer. Data on most DA performance indicators is available on an
on-going basis with little technical difficulty in capturing the data.
Managers at all levels have access to the information. The data is
valuable for program management except in cases where the data does not
present a regular trend. For example, where the performance measure is
the number of personnel trained, the schedule of training classes may
not be scheduled evenly throughout the period.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget. Have you faced such difficulty? Would the
linkages be clearer if your budget account structure were modified? If
so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you believe such
modification would be more useful both to your agency and to this
committee than the present structure? How would such modification
strengthen accountability for program performance in the use of
budgeted dollars?
Answer. The performance objectives and indicators fit well within
the organizational and budget structure of DA. No major changes are
needed at this time.
Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
government functions; and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
perform these functions. Could you comment on your agency's cost
accounting expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. Because DA includes so many varied activities, cost
comparisons between programs may not be very meaningful. For example,
reducing the average time for the resolution of a civil rights case by
one month might cost $1,000. It is difficult to compare the value of
this accomplishment with the installation of a communication capability
to provide security information which might cost the same amount.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
OMB, this year for the first time all Federal agencies are required to
have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting. What is the status of your
agency's implementation of the Managerial Cost Accounting requirement,
and are you using Activity-Based Costing?
Answer. USDA is in compliance with FASAB's cost accounting
standards. The Department has identified responsibility segments, for
which financial statement reporting is provided, employing full cost
techniques that include unfunded pension and accrued annual leave,
Federal Employment Compensation Act accrued expenses, GSA rent,
depreciation, and other expense items that are appropriate. Currently,
the Department uses several costing techniques, including Activity-
based Costing, that permit us to determine the cost of our strategic
goals and selected output activities.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this Committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
and depreciation?
Answer. The Department's current goal is to implement the
Foundation Financial Information System throughout all USDA agencies in
order to provide standardized accounting methodologies and improved
data for management and reporting purposes for salaries and expenses
and administrative operations. As the Department improves its basic
accounting and reporting processes, it will be able to better identify
activities and outputs for unit costing including overhead costs.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. DA expenses would be more accurately associated with the
overhead costs of the program agencies.
Question. Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each
activity and result?
Answer. Yes, subject to the limitations explained above.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with any
particular performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. Under the current system, the cost of office space is not
distributed to each performance goal in the Annual Performance Plan.
Similarly, There are certain accrued leave costs which are not
identified to each organization separately. The Chief Financial Officer
conducts an analysis each year to address some of these costs.
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
the development of the agency's Performance Plan.
Answer. The means and strategies for accomplishment of DA's
performance goals did not involve any major regulatory reforms.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 Performance Plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievement?
Answer. Virtually all the performance goals in DA require adequate
resources for achievement. This is particularly true of the objectives
in space utilization, safety and renovation of the headquarters work
space. The 10-year Agriculture South Building renovation project was
approved by Congress in 1995. Yet, funding for the project has been
inconsistent and the work may be suspended later this year.
Question. If so, what steps have you identified to prepare,
anticipate and plan for such influences?
Answer. We have taken every opportunity to explain the relationship
between the continued renovation of the Agriculture and our goals and
objectives for safety and economy and the relationship to a productive
USDA workforce. Funds to get the project back on track are included in
the President's budget. We are hopeful that the project will be
continued to completion.
Question. What impact might external factors have on your resource
estimates?
Answer. As the renovation project is delayed, inflation in the
construction industry can be expected to increase the eventual cost.
Also, the requirement to absorb the mandatory pay cost increases erodes
the organization's capability to fully complete the performance
objectives.
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication?
Answer. We have not identified any overlapping functions, but many
of our Staff Offices have responsibilities under the same Strategic
Goals. For example, the Office of Civil Rights and the Conflict
Prevention and Resolution Center have joint responsibility for the
Alternative Dispute Resolution Program.
Question. If so, does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or
duplication?
Answer. This has not been a problem in DA.
Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
and if so, how?
Answer. Duplication and overlap should be addressed before an
Annual Performance Plan is put into effect. In DA, we have made some
minor organizational changes and transferred personnel to avoid such
situations. The GPRA plans should help overcome management challenges
by clearly delineating responsibilities and identifying resources
available to achieve goals and objectives in each area.
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
guide decision making?
Answer. To be valuable in managing agency responsibilities, the key
elements of the organizations Strategic Plan and the Annual Performance
Plan must be a factor in operating decisions made every day. Shortly
after being appointed to this post, I held a workshop with my senior
managers and key personnel and addressed this operating philosophy. To
ensure that the performance objectives are meaningful in terms of the
decisions managers face every day, I am reviewing the DA Strategic
Plan. I expect to establish goals and objectives which will clearly
guide my managers in making their operational decisions.
Question. Will this use increase in the future and if so in what
ways?
Answer. Based on my philosophy concerning the role of performance
goals and objectives in day to day management of operations, I feel
certain that the use GPRA will increase in the future.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that: To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
to allow for these kinds of uses? Are there any factors, such as
inexperience in making estimates for certain activities or lack of
data, that might affect the accuracy of resource estimates?
Answer. A blanket statement is very hard to make in this case. My
experience has been that low performance against a program goal
sometimes means more resources are needed in that area and in other
cases it means that the activity needs to be de-emphasized.
Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements? Specifically, are you requesting any
relaxation of transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
accountability commitments?
Answer. We are seeking no such changes at this time.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 2000 Performance Plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. As discussed above, I am in the process of examining the DA
Strategic Plan. I am factoring in the experience my managers have had
in operating under GPRA for a few years. I am looking at the goals,
objectives, and performance factors which are measurable and will be
useful and in guiding day-to-day operations.
______
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. The performance goals for the Office of the Chief
Information Officer (OCIO) measures the progress of activities that
directly support the mission, strategic goals and program activities as
described in the Agency budget request.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities?
Answer. The Program Managers developed their budget requests as
well as the performance measures to support the performance goals.
Program Managers utilize the following procedure to link performance
goals to budget activities: prepare action plan, identify major
milestones, determine strategy to meet milestones, identify performance
measures, determine budget requirements necessary to meet milestones
and performance measure, compare planned versus actual performance to
validate budget request and adjust action plan and budget based on
outcome of previous step.
Question. What difficulties, if any, did you encounter, and what
lessons did you learn?
Answer. The difficulty arises when funds have not been appropriated
for programs that are identified in the agency Strategic Plan. In
addition, acquiring and maintaining staff expertise in the areas needed
to perform program activities is become an ongoing issue.
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget?
Answer. During the fiscal year 2001 budget development process,
OCIO staff made certain that all increases were aligned with the
Strategic Plan and the Annual Performance Plan.
Question. Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. OCIO has only one account and the performance measures
support this account.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Answer. The OCIO planning structure does not differ from the
account and activity structure.
Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. There are no plans to propose any changes to this
structure.
Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
described under that account structure?
Answer. There are no plans to propose any changes to the program
activities under the account structure.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. The performance measures were developed to identify the key
component for determining if the program was successfully meeting the
goal. For example, the need for validating and verifying data for the
Y2K effort and measuring the progress of Service Center Initiatives
(SCI) and implementation of the capital planning and investment control
process were all deemed essential to USDA mission areas.
Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
Answer. The agency determined that the mission critical nature of
both the Y2K initiative and SCI justified any costs associated with
performing reliable and meaningful independent validation and
verifications for these programs.
Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. The performance data was verified through the independent
validation and verification of the SCI and Y2K programs. Several of the
performance measures from the fiscal year 1999 Annual Performance
Report were modified for fiscal year 2000 in order to more accurately
describe the activity. The performance measures for the new cyber-
security initiative were modified and will be updated again as the
Cyber-Security Program grows.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
2000 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results?
Answer. OCIO has established several performance goals based on
three strategic goals. The key performance goals OCIO recommends this
subcommittee track based on the fiscal year 2000 Annual Performance
plan are: Establish USDA policy on IT management using the Capital
Planning and Investment Control Methodology; Develop and Implement USDA
architecture; Infuse government and electronic data interchange
technologies into business processes where applicable; Ensure that the
Service Center technology improvements are driven by business needs and
support re-engineered business processes; Establish a Central Cyber
Security Office; Establish a department-level Risk Management Program
and develop a USDA Enterprise Network. Each of these goals will be
measured to track program results and will be available to the
committee for review.
Question. For each key annual goal, indicate whether you consider
it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measure (``how
well'').
Answer. OCIO has identified three goals: Ensure decisions regarding
the selection and deployment of information technology are based on
USDA needs (outcome measure); Develop Department-wide information and
technical infrastructures that will improve service delivery through
more effective information systems and data management (outcome
measure) and; Be a leading innovative information technology services
organization, experienced in providing quality and cost-effective
services for centralized and distributed computing, and applications
support (output measure).
Question. State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and
objective from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is
linked.
Answer. The following describes the key performance goals and their
linkage to the agency general goals. (1) Establish USDA policy on IT
management using the Capital Planning and Investment Control
Methodology; Develop and Implement USDA architecture--Goal 1; (2)
Infuse government and electronic data interchange technologies into
business processes where applicable--Goal 1; (3) Ensure that the
Service Center technology improvements are driven by business needs and
support re-engineered business processes--Goal 1; (4) Establish a
Central Cyber Security Office--Goal 2; (5) Establish a department-level
Risk Management Program--Goal 2 and: (6) Develop a USDA Enterprise
Network--Goal 2.
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. OCIO made a conscious effort to develop a minimum number of
solid performance measures that effectively measure program outcomes.
This minimized data collection costs when verifying the results. OCIO
senior management reviewed these goals to ensure the plan includes a
significant number of outcome measures.
Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
Answer. OCIO program managers do have an understanding of the
differences between goals that measure output and those that measure
outcome.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
external customers.
Answer. Customer satisfaction is measured differently for the
Working Capital Fund OCIO cost centers the National Information
Technology Center (NITC) and the Telecommunications Services Office
(TSO) and the OCIO appropriated programs. Both NITC and TSO meet
regularly with the customers to review performance. There are also
service level agreements between these Working Capital Fund (WCF)
activities and customers to define an acceptable level of service. The
appropriated activities also meet regularly with their customers to
discuss how the programs should be implemented. As far as internal
customers, OCIO does measure the satisfaction of its employees directly
in its plans and reports by gauging their level of morale and
monitoring complaints.
Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 2000
Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
Answer. OCIO goals and performance measures were used as part of
the basis for planning the fiscal year 2001 budget. The performance
measures were reviewed to make sure that we are applying the most
effective measure for monitoring performance. The cost of these
measures was also reviewed. As the fiscal year 2001 budget was
developed, program managers were required to verify that their
performance measures aligned with the Strategic Plan.
Question. If a proposed budget number is changed. up or down. by
this committee will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact the
change would have on the level of program performance and the
achievement of various goals?
Answer. Yes, we would be able to inform you of the impact of such
changes on program performance in meeting our goals.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis so
that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired results?
Answer. OCIO does have the technological capability to measure and
report program performance throughout the year.
Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
Answer. Information concerning performance is available to all
managers.
Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
performance-related data located throughout your various information
systems?
Answer. The USDA information technology capital planning and
investment control(CPIC) process continues to expand utilization of the
Information Technology Investment Portfolio System (ITIPS) a web-based
tool that facilities the data collection and analysis necessary track
USDA IT projects throughout the selection, control, and evaluation
phases of the CPIC process. Information from this application is
readily available.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget. Many agencies have indicated that their
present budget account structure makes it difficult to link dollars to
results in a clear and meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty?
Answer. No, we have not faced any such difficulty. OCIO maintains
only one account for appropriated activity. The WCF accounts are
closely monitored by the Working Capital Fund Executive Board to assure
performance meets the expected outcome.
Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
structure were modified?
Answer. There is currently no need to modify the budget account
structure for either the appropriated or WCF accounts.
Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
to this committee than the present structure?
Answer. There is currently no need to modify the budget account
structure for either the appropriated or WCF accounts.
Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. There is currently no need to modify the budget account
structure for either the appropriated or WCF accounts.
Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
government functions; and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
perform these functions. Could you comment on your agency's cost
accounting expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. Although the Department has some personnel with cost
accounting expertise, the Department's Chief Financial Officer has
recognized the need for a Department-wide effort to enhance cost
accounting expertise and $240,000 is included in the fiscal year 2001
President's Budget request to provide such leadership. Currently, we
are linking budget program activities to the goals in our annual
performance plan. Ultimately, the additional fiscal year 2001 resources
and a better-trained workforce, the Department will continue to
implement improvements in this area.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to
have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting. The clearly preferred
methodology for such a system, as stated in that standard, is the one
known as `` Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby the full cost is
calculated for each of the activities of an agency. What is the status
of your agency's implementation of the Managerial Cost Accounting
requirement, and are you using Activity-Based Costing?
Answer. USDA is in compliance with FASAB's cost accounting
standards. The Department has identified responsibility segments, for
which financial statement reporting is provided, employing full cost
techniques that include unfounded pension and accrued annual leave,
Federal Employment Compensation Act accrued expenses, GSA rent,
depreciation, and other expense items that are appropriate. Currently,
the Department uses several costing techniques, including Activity-
Based Costing, that permit us to determine the cost of our strategic
goals and selected out activities. OCIO is scheduled to start using the
USDA Foundation Financial Information System (FFIS) on October 1, 2001.
At that time, OCIO should meet all requirements for Managerial Cost
Accounting.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
and depreciation?
Answer. The Department's current goal is to implement the
Foundation Financial Information System throughout all USDA agencies in
order to provide standardized accounting methodologies and improve data
integrity for management and reporting purposes for salaries and
expenses and administrative operations. As the Department improves its
basic accounting and reporting processes, it will be able to better
identify activities and outputs for unit costing and will evaluate the
various accounting methodologies available and incorporate the
appropriate methodology for the activity being costed. OCIO is
scheduled to start using the USDA Foundation Financial Information
System (FFIS) on October 1, 2001. At that time, OCIO should meet all
requirements for Managerial Cost Accounting. Our WCF accounts already
show depreciation. Appropriated accounts do not generally depreciate
capital equipment.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. Yes, we strongly believe that effective implementation of
costing systems will vastly improve Federal planning, evaluation, and
reporting at all levels of the organization. OCIO is scheduled to start
using the USDA Foundation Financial Information System (FFIS) on
October 1, 2001. At that time, OCIO should meet all requirements for
Managerial Cost Accounting.
Question. Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each
activity and result?
Answer. As the Department implements activity based costing, it
will be able to provide unit costs for activities and results.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with any
particular performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. OCIO already allocates overhead costs to its goals in its
Annual Performance Plans.
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
the development of the agency's performance plan.
Answer. There are no regulatory reform measures that have been put
in place in conjunction with the development of the OCIO performance
plan.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 performance plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievement?
Answer. External factors were not identified in either the OCIO
Annual Performance Plan or the Strategic Plan as having an impact on
achieving the goals.
Question. If so, what steps have you identified to prepare,
anticipate and plan for such influences?
Answer. External factors were not identified in either the OCIO
Annual Performance Plan or the Strategic Plan as having an impact on
achieving the goals.
Question. What impact might external factors have on your resource
estimates?
Answer. External factors were not identified in either the OCIO
Annual Performance Plan or the Strategic Plan as having an impact on
achieving the goals.
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication?
Answer. No overlapping or duplicated functions have been identified
as a result of the development of the OCIO Annual Performance Plan.
Question. If so, does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or
duplication?
Answer. No overlapping or duplicated functions have been identified
as a result of the development of the OCIO Annual Performance Plan.
Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
and if so, how?
Answer. Agencies can indeed use GPRA plans to identify such issues,
particularly through management initiatives. OCIO has two management
initiatives related to professional development of its employees.
However, currently OCIO deals with issues of duplication and
overlapping functions through other channels.
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
guide decision making?
Answer. OCIO leadership is committed to the principles of GPRA.
OCIO has sponsored several workshops to discuss strategic planning.
These sessions have also been used to review the status of our goals
and if necessary, revise our strategy for accomplishing these goals.
Question. Will this use increase in the future and if so in what
ways?
Answer. OCIO managers have been full participants in the
development of our goals and performance measures, and they will carry
their understanding of these principles forward as we begin the process
of developing the 2002 appropriated budget.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that: To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
to allow for these kinds of uses?
Answer. Our performance measure are in their adolescence, as we
gain more experience with each planning and reporting cycle they will
mature and become more reliable.
Question. Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making
estimates for certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the
accuracy of resource estimates?
Answer. The highest priorities in OCIO are based on a rapidly
changing technology. Therefore, OCIO must maintain a position of
flexibility in order to meet these highly technical challenges. The
difficulty in transferring this flexibility to performance measures is
demonstrated in the OCIO Annual Performance Plan for the past few
years. As cyber security vulnerabilities have increased with the growth
of the Internet, performance measures must be continuously revised to
accurately identify outcomes for this program.
Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements?
Answer. OCIO will not be requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements.
Question. Specifically, are you requesting any relaxation of
transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
accountability commitments?
Answer. OCIO will not be requesting any relaxation of transfer or
reprogramming controls in return for specific accountability
commitments.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 2000 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. Yes, the OCIO Strategic Plan needs to be revised to reflect
changes in technology and changes in the priorities within the
organization. OCIO is now in the process of making these adjustments.
______
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. Annual performance goals and program activities are linked
to the Hazardous Materials Management Program (HMMP) mission and
strategic goals by assigning targets to measure the progress of
activities conducted pursuant to the requirements of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). It is the statutory
requirements within these and other acts that form the basis for the
HMMP mission.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities?
Answer. The Hazardous Waste Management Appropriation (HWMA) was
established in 1988 to provide targeted funding for priority hazardous
materials cleanup projects. In the fiscal year 2001 appropriations
language, the account name will change to the Hazardous Materials
Management Appropriation to more accurately reflect its purpose and
scope. The Hazardous Materials Management Group (HMMG) recommends
policies regarding management and cleanup, provides technical
assistance and oversight, and prepares consolidated HMMA budget
requests, annual performance plans, accomplishments reports, and annual
program performance reports, using data submitted by USDA agencies.
Annually, USDA agencies prepare prioritized funding requests for
planning-year HMMP activities, revise their proposed programs of work
at the start of the current fiscal year based on factors that include
the availability of appropriated funds, and report HMMP accomplishments
using a spreadsheet-based system developed by HMMG. Key reporting
parameters include specific project activities requiring funding,
performance targets for work to be undertaken, project priority,
status, and cost data. All activities must be identified as supporting
one of the allowable program activities shown in the table of codes for
project activities provided.
[The information follows:]
CODES FOR PROJECT ACTIVITIES, BY INDICATOR TYPE AND GROUP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P, M,
Indicator Indicator Activity Code Program OBPA Crosscut Category GPRA or I Activity Description/
Group Goal \1\ Summary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Identification, Investigation, 1 ................ ................ ....................... ...... ....... .........................
and Cleanup Planning.
1 3016............ RCRC............ Compliance............. 1 P RCRA section 3016
inventory.
1 STID............ SFND............ Other.................. 1 P CERCLA site
identification--40 CFR
300.405.
1 PA.............. SFND............ Compliance............. 1 P CERCLA Preliminary
Assessment (by NCP--40
CFR 300.410(b) for
removal PA or 40 CFR
300.420.420(b) for
remedial PA, and EPA
guidance).
1 SI.............. SFND............ Compliance............. 1 P CERCLA Site Inspection
(all types, by NCP--40
CFR 300.410(d) for
removal SI or 40 CFR
300.420.420(c) for
remedial SI and EPA
guidance).
1 PASI............ SFND............ Compliance............. 1 P Combined category that
includes both PA and SI.
1 EECA............ SFND............ Cleanup................ 1 P Engineering evaluation/
cost analysis (i.e., for
non-time-critical
removal)--40 CFR
300.415(b)(4)--may
include National Argonne
Lab's Expedited Site
Characterization when
done IAW NCP.
1 RIFS............ SFND............ Cleanup................ 1 P Remedial investigation/
feasibility study--40
CFR 300.430.
1 RMVD............ SFND............ Cleanup................ 1 P Removal design--40 CFR
300.415.
1 REMD............ SFND............ Cleanup................ 1 P Remedial design--40 CFR
300.435.
1 CESA............ SFND............ Other.................. 1 P CERCLA Section 120(h)
Property Assessment,
``due diligence''.
1 BRWP............ SFND............ Other.................. 1 P Brownfields redevelopment
investigation/planning.
1 RPLN............ RCRD............ Cleanup................ 1 P RCRA subtitle C or D
planning (e.g., closure
plan, corrective action
plan).
1 RISK............ PGMT............ Compliance............. 1 P Risk assessment
(ecological or human
health) for CERCLA or
RCRA compliance.
1 UPLN............ RCRI............ Cleanup................ 1 P RCRA subtitle I planning
(e.g., plans for UST
removal, UST cleanups).
1 CHAR............ SFND............ Other.................. 1 P Other site
characterization/
investigation (i.e., not
PA, SI, ESA, or by NCP)--
may include Argonne
National Lab's Expedited
Site Characterization.
===================================================================================================================
Cleanup (Including UST)............. 2 ................ ................ ....................... ...... ....... .........................
2 USTC............ RCRI............ Cleanup................ 1 I UST removals and cleanup
of contamination from
releases--40 CFR 280.
2 RMVA............ SFND............ Cleanup................ 1 I CERCLA removal action--40
CFR 300.415, 300.820.
2 REMA............ SFND............ Cleanup................ 1 I CERCLA remedial action--
40 CFR 300.435, 300.815.
2 O&M............. SFND............ Cleanup................ 1 I Operations and
maintenance after CERCLA
response action--40 CFR
300.435(f).
2 PCLN............ SFND............ Cleanup................ 1 I CERCLA 120(h) Property
Cleanup.
2 OPLM............ SFND............ Compliance............. 1 I CERCLA environmental
monitoring (after CERCLA
response action).
2 BRWN............ SFND............ Cleanup................ 1 I Brownfields cleanup/
redevelopment.
2 CORA............ RCRC............ Compliance............. 1 I RCRA corrective action--
40 CFR 264.100-101.
2 CLOS............ RCRC............ Compliance............. 1 I RCRA (clean) closure--40
CFR 264, Subpart G.
2 DISP............ RCRC............ Compliance............. 2 I RCRA subtitle C hazardous
waste disposal (may not
qualify for HMMP funds).
2 SWCL............ RCRD............ Cleanup................ 1 I RCRA subtitle D--cleanup/
close solid waste
management units--40 CFR
257 or 258.
2 RCRD............ RCRD............ Cleanup................ 1 I Other RCRA subtitle D
compliance (may not
qualify for HMMP funds).
2 GWMI............ RCRC............ Compliance............. 1 I RCRA environmental
monitoring (after
closure or corrective
action).
2 MXDW............ RCRC............ Cleanup................ 1 I Radioactive mixed wastes
only (if other codes do
not apply).
2 ORPH............ SFND............ Cleanup................ 1 I Orphan share of CERCLA
cleanups not included
elsewhere.
===================================================================================================================
Natural resource damage............. 3 ................ ................ ....................... ...... ....... .........................
3 PAS............. SFND............ Other.................. 1 P Preassessment screening.
3 NRDA............ SFND............ Other.................. 1 P Natural resource damage
assessment.
3 NRRP............ SFND............ Other.................. 1 P Natural resource
restoration planning.
3 NRRE............ SFND............ Cleanup................ 1 I Natural resource damage
restoration.
===================================================================================================================
Enforcement support and cost 4 ................ ................ ....................... ...... ....... .........................
recovery.
4 ENFS............ SFND............ Other.................. 1 P Enforcement support
(e.g., PRP search,
viability det., case
development).
4 PRPW............ SFND............ Cleanup................ 1 I Value of response and
restoration work
performed/funded by
PRP's.
4 RCVY............ SFND............ Other.................. 1 I Response and/or
restoration costs
recovered.
===================================================================================================================
Pollution prevention and 7 ................ ................ ....................... ...... ....... .........................
environmental audit.
7 PPEO............ PRVN............ Other.................. 2 P Pollution prevention (P2)
planning.
7 POLP............ PRVN............ Other.................. 2 I P2 implementation.
7 AUDT............ PGMT............ Other.................. 2 M Management system audit
supporting CEMP, P2/SR
implementation.
===================================================================================================================
Case assistance (OGC only).......... 8 CASE............ SFND............ Cleanup................ 1 M .........................
===================================================================================================================
Management.......................... 9 ................ ................ ....................... ...... ....... .........................
9 PGMT............ PGMT............ Other.................. 1 M General program
management.
9 OVRS............ SFND............ Cleanup................ 1 I Oversight of work by
PRP's or other non-
agency entity.
9 PJMT............ PGMT............ Other.................. 1 I Individual project
management not covered
elsewhere.
9 FUND............ PGMT............ Other.................. 2 M Transfer, deobligation,
and other administrative
actions with funds.
9 TRNG............ PGMT............ Other.................. 2 M All allowable training.
9 OTHR............ PGMT............ Other.................. 2 M All allowable other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ P--Planning, I--Implementation, M--Management.
ACRONYMS
APHIS--Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ARS--Agricultural Research Service CMPA--Compliance agreement (FEDPLAN code) ESDF--
Established standard, compliance date in future (FEDPLAN code) ESDL--Established standard, demonstrate leadership (FEDPLAN code) ESDP--
Established standard, compliance date passed (FEDPLAN code) ESRE--Established standard, replacement due to expansion (FEDPLAN code) ESRO--
Established standard, replacement due to obsolescence (FEDPLAN code) F--Finished, or projected to be finished, in indicated fiscal year FF--
Finished in the previous fiscal year (enter code only once) FS--Forest Service FSA/CCC--Farm Service Agency, Commodity Credit Corporation
FSA/FLP--Farm Service Agency, Farmer Loan Programs FSIS--Food Safety and Inspection Service H--High (FEDPLAN priority) HMMG--
Hazardous Materials Management Group I--Implementation, action (Sub-Program) INOV--Notice of violation (FEDPLAN code) L--Low (FEDPLAN
priority) M--Medium (FEDPLAN priority), or management (Sub-Program) N--New project/activity this fiscal year O--Ongoing project/
activity from previous fiscal year OGC--Office of General Counsel OTHR--Other reasons/needs (FEDPLAN code) OVRS--Oversight of work by
others P--Planning (Sub-Program) PDEF--Program definition (FEDPLAN code) PGMT--Program management (FEDPLAN code) PPAC--Pollution
prevention to achieve compliance (FEDPLAN code) PRVN--Pollution prevention PSDF--Pending standard, compliance date in future (FEDPLAN code)
RCRC--RCRA Subtitle C, Hazardous Waste RCRD--RCRA Subtitle D, Solid Waste RCRI--RCRA Subtitle I, UST RD--Rural Development
SFND--Superfund, CERCLA.
Each allowable activity is explicitly linked to a specific
performance goal. Regulatory references are provided to further ensure
that budget requests support HMM's performance goals. By requiring that
all reported data be linked to a standard list of program activities
defined in applicable regulations (e.g., the National Contingency Plan
for CERCLA preliminary assessments, site inspections, and response
actions), correlation is high between budget activities and performance
goals.
Question. What difficulties, if any, did you encounter, and what
lessons did you learn?
Answer. The current spreadsheet-based system used to monitor
program activities was implemented at the end of fiscal year 1997 to
improve data consistency and accessibility to management. It has also
made it easier to link budget activities to performance targets.
Difficulties encountered in implementing the new system were largely
the result of affected agencies using different information system
platforms and software and the variability in system users'
proficiency. Use of commercially available software has helped ease the
problem of quality data acquisition and processing. An unresolved
difficulty is that of linking specific project activities to budget
object data on a project-by-project basis. A work group was recently
formed to address this issue.
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget?
Answer. Yes, the HMMP budget is built up from prioritized
activities that are explicitly linked to specific performance goals and
measures.
Question. Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. Yes, HMMP appropriated funds are allocated and distributed
to several USDA agencies who draw from the same list of performance
measures in requesting funds and reporting accomplishments.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Answer. The performance planning structure is based upon compliance
with two statutes, CERCLA and RCRA, whereas the account and activity
structure in the budget justification is a single line item. Two
performance goals are associated with the single line item for the
HMMA. About 90-95 percent of the HMMP budget supports investigation and
cleanup under CERCLA of past contamination on lands and facilities
under USDA jurisdiction, custody, and control, plus leaking underground
storage tank cleanup under RCRA. The remaining 5-10 percent of the
budget is for other RCRA compliance.
Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. HMMG does not plan to propose any changes to the account
structure for fiscal year 2001.
Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
described under that account structure?
Answer. No changes are proposed.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. Performance measures were selected to provide the
accomplishment information the House Agriculture Appropriations
Committee requested in relation to compliance with CERCLA and RCRA.
Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
Answer. The spreadsheet-based reporting system was developed to
meet data needs at minimal cost. It has been designed to improve data
reliability as well as program management. The performance data needed
is a measure of progress toward meeting the goals of USDA's cleanup
program, namely completing 150 cleanups by 2002 and the entire cleanup
program by 2045.
Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. The plan does not include performance measures for which
reliable data will not be available in time for the first performance
report in March 2000.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
2000 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results?
Answer. The performance measures recommended for tracking program
results are those appearing under Goal 1 in HMMP's Annual Performance
Plan for fiscal year 2001. Specifically, these are:
--number of sites assessed/characterized on need for cleanup,
--number of cleanup plans completed,
--number of cleanups completed,
--number of inactive and abandoned mine cleanups completed,
--number of agreements reached with potentially responsible parties
(PRPs), and
--estimated value of cleanup/restoration work performed by PRPs
($millions).
Question. For each key annual goal, indicate whether you consider
it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measure (``how
well'').
Answer. All are output measures in support of the larger desired
outcome of restored facilities, lands, and watersheds. Cleaning up
contamination is necessary for attaining the larger outcome, which is
best addressed in the performance measures of the individual agencies
receiving HMMP funds. For example, the cleanup of inactive and
abandoned mines in the HMMP is an integral part of Forest Service
activities under USDA Goal 3 and the Clean Water Action Plan.
Question. State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and
objective from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is
linked.
Answer. Goal #1: Improve the quality of the work environment for
all employees, improve regulatory compliance and environmental
awareness, and improve and restore facilities and lands under USDA
stewardship, seeking compensation from those responsible for the
contamination. Objective #1-1: Restoration of lands and facilities
contaminated by hazardous substances, seeking compensation from those
who caused the contamination.
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. HMMP performance measures are intentionally established as
output measures which contribute to the desired outcome. The desired
outcome of the HMMP is completing the entire cleanup program. In 1995,
USDA set the goal of achieving this outcome by 2045.
Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
Answer. The HMMP program managers fully understand the difference.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
external customers.
Answer. While HMMP does not have specific measures for customer
satisfaction in its GPRA plans, a primary measure of customer
satisfaction is the minimal number of environmental enforcement actions
and lawsuits by private parties brought to date against USDA agencies.
Such activity is closely monitored by USDA through both the HMMP and
the Office of the General Counsel.
Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 2000
Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
Answer. Planned HMMP activities, the prioritized funding request,
and performance goals for the fiscal year 2001 budget were based on the
agencies' best estimate of progress in the remainder of fiscal year
1999 and the goals in the program of work for fiscal year 2000. Each
year's specific goals are somewhat independent, because there is
considerable variability in the costs and course of environmental
investigations and cleanups. Each year's goals build upon the actual
and planned work of all preceding years.
Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by
this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact
the change would have on the level of program performance and the
achievement of the various goals?
Answer. The likely impact of a change in a proposed budget number
can be indicated. Detailed project lists are provided with each budget
request, and the agency's priority for each project is shown. To
determine the program impact, the lower priority projects would be
deferred to reach the proposed budget number, with the understanding
that regulatory and other requirements may not allow some activities to
be deferred.
If the budget number is changed upward, work planned for a later
year would be advanced into the earlier year. Priorities are not
currently assigned to outyear projects, but the effect on program goals
could be generally estimated.
In practice, environmental cleanups require flexibility in project
implementation and funding. Within USDA, plans for some unfunded
priority projects are typically prepared along with the funded projects
to allow for adjustment in the program if a funded project is delayed
or additional funding becomes available. This proactive approach
provides maximum efficiency and cost effectiveness in conducting
investigations and cleanups.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results?
Answer. Yes, the spreadsheet reporting system and other records
provide this capability. Currently, program performance is assessed at
the Department level at the beginning of the fourth quarter and at the
close of the fiscal year. Aggregated program performance, in the form
of National Finance Center reports, is monitored monthly. Agencies
submit reports and are encouraged to monitor their HMMP activities on a
regular basis.
Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
Answer. All levels of management have access to program status
reports.
Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
performance-related data located throughout your various information
systems?
Answer. Yes, a single spreadsheet-based system is used to maintain
HMMP data at the USDA level.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget. Many agencies have indicated that their
present budget account structure makes it difficult to link dollars to
results in a clear and meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty?
Answer. HMMP has not faced difficulties as a result of the budget
account structure.
Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
structure were modified?
Answer. Linkages would not necessarily be clearer if the budget
account structure was modified.
Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
to this committee than the present structure?
Answer. This question is not applicable.
Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. This question is not applicable.
Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
government functions; and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
perform these functions. Could you comment on your agency's cost
accounting expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. The HMMP relies on systems and expertise of the National
Finance Center and the individual financial offices of the affected
agencies for accounting services.
There is already a linkage, even before planned improvements are
implemented. The prioritized project list submitted with the HMMP
budget package includes information on the funding needed for each
activity, the relationship of the planned activities to the GPRA
performance goals and indicators, the specific desired output, and the
governing statutory or regulatory authorities. Information is also
presented on the location of each proposed activity, its current
status, the goal for the end of the year, and other planning
information.
At the end of each fiscal year, agencies report on their activity-
specific obligations and carryover, which activities were completed
that year, and other financial and performance data. The data is in
spreadsheet format, so it can be readily summarized and analyzed by
management. Attainment of performance goals is evaluated, as are such
indicators of program performance as obligation rates, the balance of
``old'' versus ``new'' work being undertaken, and the balance of
investigative versus cleanup work.
Work is ongoing to improve the linkage of budgets and results.
Training of system users is ongoing to increase efficiency and improve
data quality. Agency management will be asked to attest to the quality
of HMMP data they submit throughout the budget cycle as well as their
contribution to the GPRA performance goals of the HMMP. Development,
testing, and implementation of a network-based system that could be
used for real-time project management as well as reporting is being
considered. The feasibility of tracking obligations and expenditures by
budget object as well as by activity is being evaluated.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to
have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting. The clearly preferred
methodology for such a system, as stated in that standard, is the one
known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby the full cost is
calculated for each of the activities of an agency. What is the status
of your agency's implementation of the Managerial Cost Accounting
requirement, and are you using Activity-Based Costing?
Answer. Currently, we rely on the individual agencies and the
National Finance Center for cost accounting of HMMP expenditures.
As noted in an earlier response, a USDA work group will try to
identify feasible alternatives for improving HMMP accounting and
accountability systems, but the solution is expected to be dependent on
USDA-wide changes in current systems.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show this committee the
full and accurate cost of each activity in the program, including in
those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits, and
depreciation?
Answer. After a USDA-wide system is implemented, we will be able to
show the committee the full and accurate cost of each activity in the
HMMP.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. The goals and activities of the HMMP are confined to CERCLA
and RCRA compliance activities. Current systems already provide a
substantially complete picture of the funds spent on the HMMP and the
results obtained.
Question. Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each
activity and result?
Answer. The spreadsheet activity-based budgeting and reporting
system used by the HMMP is already able to provide substantially
complete unit costs, although a small portion of total actual costs may
not be reflected in all cases, because the individual agencies may or
may not be using full-cost accounting methods.
To illustrate, a table summarizing fiscal year 1999 HMMP
accomplishments by project status and performance indicator is
provided.
The fact that the average cost of the 21 federally funded cleanups
that were finished was about $13,500 suggests that these were
relatively small and simple cleanups. The average obligation on ongoing
cleanups was nearly ten times as much, and work greater than the entire
HMMA budget was performed by potentially responsible parties or cost
recovered on two larger cleanups.
[The information follows:]
SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 1999 ACCOMPLISHMENTS, USDA HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, BY STATUS AND PRIORITY
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indicator group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollution Program
Project status when fiscal Year-end fiscal year 1999 data type Natural prevention management,
year 1999 ended Investigations Cleanups resource Enforcement UST and Legal including Grand
damage support cleanups environmental support PRP total
auditing oversight
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finished Sum of HMMA Obligated Amount $1,385.7 $148.1 ........ $10.2 $104.9 ............. ......... ........... $1,648.8
Count of HMMA Obligated Amount 9 12 ........ 1 3 ............. ......... ........... 25
Sum of Non-HMMA Obligated Amount $68.4 $135.5 ........ ........... $221.0 $476.0 ......... ........... $900.9
Count of Non-HMMA Obligated Amount 5 9 ........ ........... 1 4 ......... ........... 19
Sum of Cost Recovery .............. .......... ........ ........... ........ ............. ......... ........... .........
Count of Cost Recovery .............. .......... ........ ........... ........ ............. ......... ........... .........
Sum of Estimated Value of PRP Work .............. $500.0 ........ ........... ........ ............. ......... $250.0 $750.0
Count of Estimated Value of PRP Work .............. 1 ........ ........... ........ ............. ......... 1 2
Finished in Earlier Fiscal Sum of HMMA Obligated Amount .............. .......... ........ ........... ........ ............. ......... ........... .........
Year
Count of HMMA Obligated Amount .............. .......... ........ ........... ........ ............. ......... ........... .........
Sum of Non-HMMA Obligated Amount .............. .......... ........ ........... ........ ............. ......... ........... .........
Count of Non-HMMA Obligated Amount .............. .......... ........ ........... ........ ............. ......... ........... .........
Sum of Cost Recovery .............. $12.0 ........ ........... ........ ............. ......... ........... $12.0
Count of Cost Recovery .............. 1 ........ ........... ........ ............. ......... ........... 1
Sum of Estimated Value of PRP Work .............. .......... ........ ........... ........ ............. ......... ........... .........
Count of Estimated Value of PRP Work .............. .......... ........ ........... ........ ............. ......... ........... .........
Ongoing Sum of HMMA Obligated Amount $6,456.4 $3,028.0 $66.7 $276.4 $554.4 $207.0 $1,060.0 $2,834.3 $14,483.2
Count of HMMA Obligated Amount 58 37 3 14 16 2 1 34 165
Sum of Non-HMMA Obligated Amount $1,824.0 $5,878.7 $16.0 $179.6 $397.0 $103.5 ......... $3,046.6 $11,445.5
Count of Non-HMMA Obligated Amount 25 33 1 3 7 2 ......... 13 84
Sum of Cost Recovery $4,710.5 $18,842.4 ........ ........... ........ $4.8 ......... $378.0 $23,935.7
Count of Cost Recovery 1 2 ........ ........... ........ 1 ......... 1 5
Sum of Estimated Value of PRP Work $2,550.0 .......... ........ ........... ........ ............. ......... $6,783.8 $9,333.8
Count of Estimated Value of PRP Work 6 .......... ........ ........... ........ ............. ......... 11 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Sum of HMMA Obligated Amount $7,842.0 $3,176.1 $66.7 $286.6 $659.3 $207.0 $1,060.0 $2,834.3 $16,132.0
Total Count of HMMA Obligated Amount 67 49 3 15 19 2 1 34 190
Total Sum of Non-HMMA Obligated Amount $1,892.4 $6,014.3 $16.0 $179.6 $618.0 $579.5 ......... $3,046.6 $12,346.4
Total Count of Non-HMMA Obligated Amount 30 42 1 3 8 6 ......... 13 103
Total Sum of Cost Recovery $4,710.5 $18,854.4 ........ ........... ........ $4.8 ......... $378.0 $23,947.7
Total Count of Cost Recovery 1 3 ........ ........... ........ 1 ......... 1 6
Total Sum of Estimated Value of PRP Work $2,550.0 $500.0 ........ ........... ........ ............. ......... $7,033.8 $10,083.8
Total Count of Estimated Value of PRP Work 6 1 ........ ........... ........ ............. ......... 12 19
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with any
particular performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. The HMMP is funded with HMMA and agency funds. HMMA funds
are allocated and distributed to a number of agencies. Some do full
cost accounting, and others do not. In general, the dollars associated
with an activity approach the full costs. This issue may also be
addressed by the recently created working group.
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
the development of the agency's performance plan.
Answer. The HMMP is governed by CERCLA, RCRA, and their
implementing regulations. No regulatory reform measures related to the
cleanup program were implemented by USDA.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 performance plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievement?
Answer. The primary external factors that affect goal achievement
are availability of sufficient funds, the time it takes to negotiate
complex agreements with regulatory agencies and responsible parties,
and the many unexpected developments in environmental investigations
and cleanups.
Question. If so, what steps have you identified to prepare,
anticipate and plan for such influences?
Answer. The steps found to be most effective in minimizing the
impact of external influences is to maintain a highly experienced staff
to manage HMMP activities; to closely coordinate and plan response
actions; and to work closely with other Federal agencies, state
agencies, and stakeholders.
Question. What impact might external factors have on your resource
estimates?
Answer. If viable responsible parties cannot be identified at sites
where environmental problems are the result of non-USDA activities, the
costs of cleanup must be borne by USDA, even if USDA activities did not
cause or contribute to the problem. Most of the biggest and most
expensive contaminated sites on lands and facilities under USDA
jurisdiction, custody, and control resulted from the activities of
others.
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication?
Answer. No overlapping functions or program duplication were
identified.
Question. If so, does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or
duplication?
Answer. This does not apply, because no overlapping functions or
program duplication were identified.
Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
and if so, how?
Answer. Annual performance plans should focus on defining and
pursuing desired outputs and outcomes; other mechanisms should be
employed to assess and report the extent to which management systems
are supporting, facilitating, or impeding the work of the organization
and to redesign organizational structure and processes to improve
effectiveness and efficiency in producing results.
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
guide decision making?
Answer. GPRA considerations are increasingly a factor in HMMP
decision making. Taken together with the potential liabilities
associated with environmental contamination, GPRA has helped focus
management attention on the short- and long-term goals and resource
needs of the HMMP.
Question. Will this use increase in the future and if so in what
ways?
Answer. To some degree, but regulatory requirements and public
interest are expected to continue to be the primary program drivers. To
the extent possible, changes in these forces will be addressed through
GPRA planning.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that: To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
to allow for these kinds of uses?
Answer. There is a one-to-one correlation between the HMMP
performance measures and the statutory or regulatory requirements they
address. Completed investigations and cleanups are the mission of the
HMMP, but these activities only contribute to the larger desired
outcomes of restored lands and watersheds on lands under USDA
jurisdiction, custody, and control. Recognizing this limited role of
the HMMP in USDA's management of lands and facilities, the performance
measures are important, but we are still early in the implementation of
this new approach.
Question. Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making
estimates for certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the
accuracy of resource estimates?
Answer. The difficulties of accurately estimating the cost and
course of projects involving environmental contamination are well
known. There may be more or less contamination than expected from the
limited investigative work that was done at the start of the project.
What appeared to be a routine project may become complicated in other
ways as well. Regulatory agencies, potentially responsible parties, and
stakeholders all play a vital role in cleanup decisions on lands under
USDA jurisdiction, custody, and control, and this role will only
increase as the larger cleanups are taken up. Environmental cleanups
will always require substantial flexibility in project implementation
and funding.
At current HMMP funding levels, it is difficult to maintain the
experienced staff needed to improve program efficiency and
effectiveness. This is particularly evident in the Forest Service,
where retirements and staffing cuts have been greatest. The inventory
of cleanups that are ready to go is being depleted as we struggle to
maintain the pace of actual cleanups in the face of these staffing
reductions and ``flat-lined'' HMMA funding for the past six years.
Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements?
Answer. No waivers of non-statutory administrative requirements are
being requested.
Question. Specifically, are you requesting any relaxation of
transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
accountability commitments?
Answer. No relaxation of transfer or reprogramming controls are
being requested.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 2000 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. Modifications to performance measures will reflect our
experience under GPRA, but at this point there have not been
substantial revisions to the strategic plan.
______
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. The mission of FSIS is to ensure that meat, poultry, and
egg products moving in interstate commerce, imported from other
countries, or exported to other countries are safe, wholesome, and
accurately labeled. In 1996, FSIS issued the HACCP final rule, which
serves as a blueprint for changes in meat, poultry, and egg products'
inspection for the future.
All FSIS programs and priorities lead to one goal: enhancing the
public health by minimizing foodborne illness from meat, poultry, and
egg products. The Strategic Plan reflects this one goal and the
strategies FSIS is currently using to reach this goal. Unlike agencies
with many, perhaps conflicting, priorities, FSIS can concentrate on
developing the best strategies to reach this one overriding goal. The
Agency created its Strategic Plan with a mission statement, goal,
objectives, and measures. In order to link the Strategic Plan with the
Annual Performance Plan (APP), FSIS converted its strategic objectives
into annual performance goals for the APP. The Agency's program
activities and corresponding budget requests support the Agency's
mission and the performance goals.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities?
Answer. The Agency recognizes the importance of linking performance
goals and budget activities through the Agency mission. The goals
represent our mission objectives, while the budget activities represent
our mission activities. To accomplish this, FSIS management guides the
budget and planning staffs as they work together in the preparation of
budget initiatives and the APP to ensure that budget requests reflect
the performance goals contained in the Agency's APP and support program
activities derived from the Agency's mission.
Question. What difficulties, if any, did you encounter and what
lessons did you learn?
Answer. FSIS has faced the challenge of developing performance
measures for which reliable data is available. Agency staffs researched
data availability and compared options for performance measures,
choosing performance measures for which data which could be more
readily obtained, verified, and validated.
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget?
Answer. FSIS uses both its Strategic Plan and budget plan to design
the APP. The performance goals are specific to achieving a reduction in
foodborne illness, and the measures in the APP indicate progress in
achieving these goals. FSIS provides a new performance measure for each
requested budget increase. For example, in the 2001 budget, FSIS
requests additional funding for visiting more establishments during
foreign reviews to ensure that equivalency standards are being met. To
link performance measures to the budget, the 2001 APP includes a
performance measure to illustrate that reviews are projected to
increase in 2001 if the Agency receives its budgetary request.
Question. Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. Most of FSIS' budget is in one appropriated salaries and
expenses account for which the Agency designed performance measures.
Many of the performance measures do not apply to the Agency's small
Trust Fund account because the HACCP final rule does not cover
voluntary inspection. The Agency has not designed separate performance
measures for the Trust Fund account.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Answer. The FSIS performance planning structure is built around
specific steps that must be carried out to achieve the strategic goal
of minimizing foodborne illness associated with meat, poultry, and egg
products. The account and activity structure used in the budget
submission is organized along program activity lines that capture the
range of infrastructure and support activities necessary to carry out a
total food safety program.
Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account and/or
program activity structure for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. FSIS has added an activity for Codex Alimentarius in the
2001 budget. Codex Alimentarius was formerly included under the Import/
Export Inspection activity.
Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
described under that account structure?
Answer. The addition of Codex Alimentarius as a budget activity is
the only change identified to date. FSIS does not anticipate proposing
any further changes to our program activities described under this
account structure.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. The FSIS Strategic Plan contains one goal and six
objectives with associated performance measurements. The same
objectives and measures detailed in the Strategic Plan are used in the
APP. The six objectives, written as performance goals in the APP, have
been slightly modified to help Agency managers focus on the need to
collect and track data for the fiscal years listed in the APP. The
annual goals are written in measurable, performance-oriented terms so
that annual program evaluations can more easily gauge progress for each
performance goal. Maintaining a common set of objectives and
performance goals provides a strong linkage between the long-range
Strategic Plan objectives and the more output-oriented performance
goals in the Annual Performance Plan. Performance measures are derived
from performance goals based on measurable activities directed toward
achieving goals. In addition to measures of ongoing program activity,
FSIS also provides performance measures for each requested budget
initiative. This is done to illustrate how additional funding would be
used if the Agency receives its budget request.
Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
Answer. In designing performance indicators, FSIS has relied on
information that is readily available within the Agency. Therefore, the
data collected for activities contained in the Strategic Plan will be
consistent and comparable with other activity data collected over time,
ensuring a stream of reliable and valid performance data for the Plan's
goals and objectives. Data quality should continue to be high since the
Agency will rely on the same data sources it has used in the past,
e.g., in-plant records.
There should be little increased cost specifically related to the
collection of data for meeting GPRA requirements. FSIS will continue to
improve the Agency's information management systems, which will
primarily benefit the food safety program, but also improve the quality
of GPRA data.
Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. FSIS has submitted its first performance report and
believes that all data incorporated are reliable. Consistent with the
2000 report, performance measures for 2001 are based on both available
and reliable information sources.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
2000 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results? For each key annual goal, indicate whether
you consider it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome
measure (``how well'').
Answer. FSIS uses a mix of outcome and output measures to assess
progress made in achieving its goal, and recommends that the
subcommittee use performance goals one, two, three, and four to track
FSIS program results. They are as follows:
--Reduce pathogens on raw products by continuing the implementation
of the Pathogen Reduction/HACCP rule.
--Establish effective working relationships with other public health
agencies and stakeholders to support the President's National
Food Safety Initiative.
--Promote food safety from farm-to-table.
--Complete the necessary cultural change to support HACCP and food
safety.
The Agency believes that HACCP, along with microbiological testing,
will improve the safety of inspected products and reduce foodborne
illness. Measurable declines in pathogen contamination of federally
inspected product, which correlate with HACCP implementation, validate
HACCP as a model system for production and inspection. This has
increased the Agency's effectiveness in completing its own HACCP-
related cultural change and working with other public health agencies
and stakeholders to promote food safety and support the President's
Food Safety Initiative.
Question. State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and
objective from the agency strategic plan to which the annual goal is
linked.
Answer. The current FSIS strategic goal is to enhance the public
health by minimizing foodborne illness from meat, poultry, and egg
products. The outcome of achieving this goal is a 25 percent reduction
in the number of foodborne illnesses associated with meat, poultry, and
egg products by the year 2000. The 2000/2001 APP is the last to be
submitted under the current 1997-2001 Strategic Plan. FSIS is currently
working with the President's Council on Food Safety to design a new
Strategic Plan for the Agency, which will set a new long term general
goal and performance objectives for fiscal year 2002 through 2006.
Question. In developing your APP, what efforts did your agency
undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include a significant
number of outcome measures?
Answer. FSIS managers provided guidance on developing performance
indicators that would provide significant measures of progress toward
achieving performance goals and the overall strategic goal based on
sources of available data. For example, reducing pathogens on raw
products through the HACCP-based inspection system is a major focus of
FSIS initiatives, which could be measured and has produced impressive
results. The APP has incorporated outcome measures for this and other
performance goals by using data available through FSIS information
sources.
Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
Answer. The Agency has provided training for its managers over the
last several years to meet the requirements of GPRA. Agency managers
are actively involved in the formulation of the APP and in budgetary
discussions. While substantial progress has been made, continued
training is needed as GPRA concepts and requirements are integrated
into ongoing program operations.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
external customers.
Answer. Customer satisfaction measures are based, in part, on
feedback from stakeholders, including our own employee groups,
representatives from the regulated industry, consumer groups, academia,
State and local governments, and foreign governments. A primary vehicle
for obtaining this feedback was the FSIS Customer Satisfaction
Initiative conducted last year as part of the National Performance
Review's customer survey initiative. Stakeholders participated in the
development of the HACCP rule and implementation of the HACCP final
rule through numerous public meetings that FSIS has conducted over the
past several years. Achievement of a 25 percent reduction in foodborne
illnesses associated with meat, poultry, and egg products in 2000, the
outcome for the Agency's strategic goal, is a powerful measure that
relates to customer satisfaction with the federal food safety program.
Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 2000
APP used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
Answer. FSIS is currently in the process of transitioning into a
post Pathogen Reduction/HACCP phase and is working to develop a new
Strategic Plan in coordination with the President's Council on Food
Safety. The Council is looking at the classic risk analysis model which
includes risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication as
the basis for developing a Strategic Plan vision statement, and
drafting food safety goals that create the framework for its food
safety Strategic Plan. The Agency used the concepts from these draft
goals and vision statement as major tools in developing the FSIS fiscal
year 2001 program initiatives, APP, and corresponding budget proposals.
Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by
this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact
the change would have on the level of program performance and
achievement of various goals?
Answer. FSIS would be able to indicate a likely general impact from
a budget change on the level of program performance and achievement of
various goals. The degree of precision would depend on the proposed
budgetary change.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results?
Answer. As previously stated, Agency management data is used in
designing performance measures. FSIS reports program performance
internally throughout the year in managing to achieve desired results.
However, FSIS does need to improve its corporate databases to improve
the quality of data gathered and disseminated, including its
accessibility, accuracy, timeliness, type, and complexity. These data
improvements would also improve program measurements.
Question. If so, who has access to the information-senior
management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
Answer. Relevant program performance data is shared throughout FSIS
among senior, mid-level and lower-level managers to achieve desired
results. Performance data guides the Agency's work at all levels of
food safety program management.
Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
performance-related data located throughout your various information
systems?
Answer. As indicated previously, improvements in Agency data
systems are needed. Data and information management needs will be
addressed in the new FSIS draft Strategic Plan.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget. Many agencies have indicated that their
present budget account structure makes it difficult to link dollars to
results in a clear and meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty?
Answer. FSIS has one strategic goal, which encompasses all
activities in the present budget account structure. The Means and
Strategies sections in the APP highlight budget proposals in the same
manner as the Explanatory Notes justifications, and enable the Agency
to link the budget activities with the performance goals and measures
in a clear and meaningful way. The activities included in the budget
account structure are sufficiently broad to cover the use of budgetary
resources and are also specific enough to account for the Agency's use
of particular resources, such as Grants-to-States, the Field Automation
and Information Management (FAIM) initiative, and Codex Alimentarius.
Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
structure were modified?
Answer. FSIS has not found the need to modify the account structure
significantly. As indicated previously, Codex Alimentarius is proposed
as a new budget activity in the 2001 budget, and will provide a
stronger linkage with the results of that activity.
Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
to this committee than the present structure?
Answer. No modification is needed at this time.
Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. No modification is needed at this time.
Question. Spending significant resources on performance measurement
systems appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not
linked to: (1) real data about what it costs to perform various
government functions; and (2) how to allocate agency resources to
perform these functions. Could you comment on your agency's cost
accounting expertise and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. FSIS' cost accounting structure reflects both direct and
indirect costs of the budget activities under which funding is
appropriated to the Agency. The current FSIS strategic plan has a
single goal: ``Enhance public health by minimizing foodborne illness
from meat, poultry, and egg products.'' All Agency costs are directed
toward achievement of this single goal.
fiscal year 2001 will be a transition year for FSIS after
completing the third and final phase of HACCP implementation. FSIS will
proceed to the next steps of its plans for HACCP through a new
strategic plan that involves coordination with the President's Council
on Food Safety. Under a new strategic plan, FSIS expects to maintain
the capability to link the costs by budget activity with the costs of
achieving one or more GPRA goals. FSIS will allocate the costs
associated with GPRA goals either manually, or on an automated basis
through new purchases of software to complement the accounting system.
New software packages for a ``Managerial Cost Accounting'' system and
an ``Activity-Based Costing'' system will also meet GPRA requirements
for reporting costs by both performance measure and activity. However,
implementation of new software will require an increase over the
Agency's baseline funding level for software and staffing.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
OMB, this year for the first time all Federal agencies are required to
have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting. The clearly preferred
methodology for such a system, as stated in that standard, is the one
known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby the full cost is
calculated for each of the activities of an agency. What is the status
of your agency's implementation of the Managerial Cost Accounting
requirement, and are you using Activity-Based Costing?
Answer. FSIS implemented the new USDA Foundation Financial
Information System (FFIS) accounting system October 1, 1999. FFIS is
configured to report costs by budget activity, which can accommodate
the ``full cost'' requirement to report on the Agency's mission
activities. FFIS does not use an ``Activity-Based Costing'' system and
would require additional resources to incorporate it into its overall
financial management system.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
and depreciation?
Answer. FSIS is currently able to report the ``full and accurate
cost'' of each Agency budget activity, including administration,
employee benefits, and depreciation using the automated FFIS accounting
system.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. FSIS currently reports the true costs of the budget
activities conducted by the food safety program. The Agency is also
making an ongoing effort to link the information contained in both the
Explanatory Notes budget activity presentation and the performance
information in the Annual Performance Plan. The President's Council on
Food Safety is in the process of developing a 5-year comprehensive
strategic plan and a coordinated food safety budget for the Federal
food safety agencies. The 5-year strategic plan, its derivative annual
performance plans and reports, and coordinated food safety budget will
present the costs and results of food safety activities government-
wide.
Question. Will you be able to show us the per-unit cost of each
activity and result?
Answer. In most instances, data that is not resident in the
accounting system must be combined manually with cost information to
obtain activity unit costs. An example is the numbers and locations of
enforcement actions, data that is not part of the accounting system.
Assuming the future addition of new software packages for a
``Managerial Cost Accounting'' system and an ``Activity-Based Costing''
system, these systems will be designed to show the per-unit cost of
each activity and result.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with any
particular performance goal reflect the full cost of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. FSIS currently calculates the full cost of its performance
measures manually in relation to the current automated ``Activity''
reporting method. These cost figures include the applicable overhead
costs. Additional software to automate this process would incorporate
the same methodology used in manual calculations.
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
the development of the agency's performance plan.
Answer. The major FSIS strategy for reaching the goal of reducing
foodborne illness is requiring plants to develop and implement HACCP-
based production systems. HACCP has proven to be an effective system
for preventing microbiological and other hazards from getting into
meat, poultry, and egg products. FSIS believes that it is far better,
and much more effective, to prevent hazards than to try to remove
hazards after they occur. Publication of the HACCP final rule in 1996
and the resulting regulatory reform efforts have guided the development
of the Strategic Plan and the succeeding Annual Performance Plans and
Reports. FSIS has undergone a major cultural change in moving the
inspection program from a command-and-control orientation to a system
of performance standards. FSIS has begun a major training and education
effort to prepare the workforce to monitor plants for prevention of
hazards rather than dealing with the negative results of hazardous
conditions in plant operations. At the same time, FSIS is reemphasizing
that plants are responsible for producing safe products by using HACCP
systems to prevent hazards.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 performance plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievement?
Answer. Where appropriate, a brief explanation of external factors
that could influence goal achievement is included by performance goal
at the end of the section titled ``Discussion of Performance Goal.''
Question. If so, what steps have you identified to prepare,
anticipate and plan for such influences?
Answer. As an example of external factors, international trade
issues have increased the importance of U.S. participation in the Codex
Alimentarius Commission to ensure that Codex standards are based on
science-based factors to promote U.S. food safety standards and trade
interests in the international arena. In many arenas, increasing
awareness of external influences and strengthening working
relationships with stakeholders has enabled FSIS to prepare,
anticipate, and plan for such influences in a proactive manner with
positive outcomes for food safety efforts.
Question. What impact might external factors have on your resource
estimates?
Answer. Several external factors have had an impact on FSIS
resource requirements, including the following examples. Regarding
international trade issues, FSIS became convinced that a significant
increase in resources for U.S. Codex Alimentarius is required to
persuade international Codex delegates of the need for science-based
standards and to promote U.S. interests at home and abroad. Legislation
introduced in the Senate to permit the interstate shipment of State
inspected product requires a comprehensive review of all State meat and
poultry programs by October 1, 2001. To prepare for passage of this
legislation, the 2001 budget requests an increase for State program
reviews. As these examples illustrate, external factors often highlight
the need for additional resources.
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
agency identified overlapping function or program duplication? If so,
does the Performance Plan identify the overlap or duplication?
Answer. The Agency has not identified internal nor external
overlapping functions or program duplication through the APP. There are
areas where there are mutual responsibilities. As a result, FSIS has
identified areas where enhanced cooperation among agencies would be
beneficial to improved food safety. For the past couple of years, the
Agency has been working closely with the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) and State government agencies to address food safety gaps in the
transportation and retail areas. Through the President's Council on
Food Safety, FSIS is working with other food safety agencies to
identify common goals, objectives, and cross cutting issues. The
President's Council on Food Safety is currently developing a food
safety Strategic Plan, which will further enhance the future
collaboration among food safety agencies.
Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
and if so, how?
Answer. Yes, within the strategic planning framework of the
President's Council on Food Safety, plans developed by FSIS are being
coordinated with those of other Federal food safety and public health
agencies, namely FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
guide decision making?
Answer. During the development of the current Strategic Plan, FSIS
leadership recognized the importance of linking human health outcomes
to HACCP implementation, which was a revolutionary change in the manner
in which the Agency conducted meat, poultry and egg product inspection.
Consequently, the Agency Strategic Plan and corresponding APPs
reflected Agency senior management decisions to establish performance
measures that were related to human health outcomes. In the past, the
Agency measured its progress in terms of outputs, such as number of
plants inspected or number of pounds of inspected product, rather than
the true societal outcomes of reduced foodborne illnesses. The Agency
is now working more closely with CDC and others to utilize measures
with a public health focus. FSIS budget submissions and APPs reflect
top management decisions based on GPRA-related performance goals. This
process is being continued and enhanced in the current development of a
new Agency Strategic Plan.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that: to what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
to allow for these kinds of uses?
Answer. FSIS has established performance measures that demonstrate
progress toward the achievement of each performance goal. That is, the
measures used correlate directly to the targeted performance. The
targets reflect both trend data and baseline data. For instance, FSIS
and CDC use trend data on foodborne illness. FSIS also uses baseline
data on the occurrence of microbiological hazards in meat, poultry, and
egg products. Performance targets have been developed using baseline
data and assumptions about the extent to which HACCP systems can reduce
microbiological and other hazards that result in foodborne illness.
These measures are based on the best available sources of data and
should be viewed as indicators of the impact of the overall food safety
program, which covers a broad range of activities.
Question. Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making
estimates for certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the
accuracy of resource estimates?
Answer. While recent data indicate, for example, that plants are
overwhelmingly meeting targets, attention to the interpretation of
performance data is needed regarding funding decisions to cover the
full range of food safety activities. Resource estimates are based on
more than current performance data, especially for proposed initiatives
that are still in the concept stage. The Agency's experience with
related activities often serves as a guide for resource estimates.
Recent budget history indicates that resource estimates are sufficient
to support proposed activities.
Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements? Specially, are you requesting any
relaxation of transfer or reprogramming controls in return for specific
accountability commitments?
Answer. No, the Agency is not requesting any such waivers.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 2000 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in the strategic plan you
issued on September 30, 1997? If so, what revisions are needed and when
do you plan to make them?
Answer. The Agency is currently drafting a new Strategic Plan for
fiscal year 2002 through 2007, which will be completed by September 30,
2000 and which will tie to the Food Safety Strategic Plan being
developed by the President's Council on Food Safety.
______
FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. FAS' program activities are restated as unique strategic
objectives with key operating strategies and performance goals. Each
FAS objective, in turn, is directly associated with FAS' strategic
goals and mission. FAS' strategic goals are directly linked to the
Department's objectives and goals.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities? What difficulties, if any,
did you encounter, and what lessons did you learn?
Answer. Prior to the 1998 budget, FAS had developed its long-term
Agricultural Trade Strategy (LATS) report which identified five (5) key
drivers of long-term success. In the 1998 budget submission, FAS
revised its program activities to correspond to these key drivers. As
FAS began developing and refining its Strategic and Annual Performance
plans, and following consultations with Senate Agriculture Committee
staff on its initial draft strategic plan, FAS identified that it had
two goals: (1) expand export opportunities for U.S. agricultural, fish,
and forest products; and (2) promote world food security. FAS
recognized that with a few modifications, its five program activities
were actually objectives that support the achievement of FAS' two
goals. The first four program activities (market access, market
development etc., market intelligence, and financial assistance) all
support FAS' goal to expand export opportunities. The last program
activity (long term market and infrastructure development) supports
FAS' goal to promote world food security. With the fiscal year 1999 and
fiscal year 2000 performance planning process FAS further understood
that the five objectives are actually a set of market expansion tools
that support one another within markets. As a result of this
progression towards better operational focus, the next strategic plan
and annual performance plans will have objectives reflecting U.S.
export goals for five regional markets and the program activities will
have focused performance goals for each region. This will support the
management of program activities as a set of tools to affect an outcome
within a region.
Like other agencies across the Federal Government, FAS learned that
in order to implement GPRA, planning needs to drive the budget. The
five program activities in the fiscal year 1999 budget submission
reflected slight modifications in the five program activities in the
fiscal year 1998 budget. These modifications are a result of FAS'
realization that it needed to realign its budget activities to its
goals and objectives. As FAS learns more about institutionalizing
performance-based management processes, it anticipates that there will
be further changes to the budget structure to accommodate changes in
legislation, the annual performance plan, international trade, and
technology. For the fiscal year 2002 plan, the regional objectives
approach will require the budget to be further subdivided by program
activity along regional lines.
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget? Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. Performance measures contained in the agency's Performance
Plan are linked to budgeted program activities. Additionally, each
account has performance measures which are displayed in FAS' Annual
Performance Plan.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Answer. FAS' performance planning structure is an adaptation of the
performance-based management structure commonly used in the private
sector. The account and activity structure is just beginning to change
from the traditional approach of associating costs to either: (1) a
broad category of personnel, travel, training, and operating costs at
the budget's identified activity categories; or (2) funding tied
specifically to legislated programs, such as the GSM program, Market
Access Program, and the Dairy Export Incentive Program. Following
pending guidance from the department, a cost-accounting system that
provides direct one-to-one linkages of specific performance measures
for each budgeted account will have to be adopted to align the two
structures.
Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2001?
Answer. No changes are planned at the present time. However, as FAS
institutionalizes its performance-based management processes and as
Federal Government agencies transition to a cost accounting system, FAS
may propose changes in its account structure to facilitate aligning
performance goals with all operating costs and appropriated/non-
appropriated program activities.
Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
described under that account structure?
Answer. No, however, the fiscal year 2002 Performance Plan
currently under development will approach the performance goals, and
hence the current budget accounts, subdivided by five geographic,
regional markets (Africa, Asia, Europe, NIS, and Western Hemisphere).
This is intended to provide focus and better management to agency goals
and expenditures.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. FAS believes that leadership starts at the top but
performance comes from the front line. Following this principle, FAS'
senior management created a draft strategic plan with objectives and
the Strategic Operations Staff of the Office of the Administrator
facilitated a series of one-day workshops for nearly every division in
the agency. The purpose of these workshops was threefold: (1) to begin
the education process of all employees and supervisors on GPRA and
performance management; (2) to validate and improve the draft strategic
plan prepared by senior management; and (3) to assist the divisions in
preparing division-level performance plans which identified performance
measures that are aligned to the agency's strategic goals and
objectives. Following these workshops, FAS senior management
participated in the validation of the revised draft strategic plan and
the performance measures identified by the divisions prior to their
submission to OMB and Congress.
Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
Answer. The process of making GPRA a reality in FAS is more than
two years in the making and still ongoing. Current performance measures
were selected and balanced on the basis of (1) how the measures
reflected the program activity's performance as an output or outcome;
(2) as a management tool for operations and budgeting, or an
illustration of end product (outcome) for a higher audience--not the
same at all in real life operations; and (3) whether the data can be
collected and verified at a reasonable cost. Since FAS's budget has
been falling in real terms for several years, easy data availability
took precedence over ideal performance measures in many cases. The
struggle over an annual performance plan that is inward looking (a
management tool) versus an outward looking tool (for high-level
overview), is still in the balancing stages.
Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. Some performance measures will not have reliable data be
available in time for your first performance report in March 2000. More
than 90 percent of FAS' performance measures will have reliable data on
performance results. Those few exceptions are due to the character of
data and we are in the process of defining data collection procedures,
such as the customer surveys and obtaining OMB approval. FAS conducted
GPRA workshops from April through June 1999 with every division
(approximately 23) that has direct responsibility for developing and
tracking the performance data necessary to meet the March 2000
performance reporting requirement. The primary purpose of these
workshops was to ensure that FAS has meaningful performance measures
and procedures in place to verify and validate that it is capturing the
right performance data.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
1999 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results? For each key annual goal, indicate whether
you consider it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome
(``how well''). State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and
objective from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is
linked.
Answer. FAS suggests that the subcommittee focus on FAS' two agency
general goals for which we have identified measurable outcomes. These
are (1) Expanding export market opportunities for U.S. agricultural
products (FAS has set a goal of U.S. exports returning to 22 percent of
total foreign imports by the year 2010); and (2) Promoting world food
security (FAS' goal is a reduction in the number of undernourished
people by one-half of the 1998 FAO population estimate). Each of these
two general goals have important annual performance measures (with
annual goal) for our major program activities. These include legislated
and agency-funded activities to enhance market access, market
development, market finance, intelligence gathering, and long-term
market enhancing and food aid programs. If these are successful, our
overall goals may be successful as well.
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. Using independent analysis from the Economic Research
Service, FAS was able to calculate the impact (i.e., outcome) of the
exports supported by its program on rural communities and the national
economy as a whole. Calculating impact of market development relies on
procedures established and approved by the Trade Promotion Coordinating
Committee (TPCC) and used in preparation of the annual National Export
Strategy submitted to the Congress. This includes calculating the
impact of FAS market development programs on exports. Estimating
national and rural economic impacts involves combining the export
impacts with trade multipliers associated with direct and indirect
effects of agricultural exports.
Question. Do you believe your program managers understand the
difference between goals that measure workload (output) and goals that
measure effectiveness (outcome)?
Answer. They are beginning to develop a greater understanding of
the difference. In order to institutionalize strategic planning at
every level of the organization, strategic planning workshops were held
over the spring and summer of 1997 for every division in the agency.
FAS conducted workshops again in 1998 and 1999. These workshops
continued the process of teaching managers and their staffs that all
activities support the organization-wide goals, and that data
collection, verification, and validation, is a vital part of GPRA. This
process of education is an ongoing requirement for FAS due to the high
proportion of rotating foreign service officers (FSO) into Washington
headquarters management positions. Typical FSOs have been overseas for
5 to 8 years and are unfamiliar with GPRA management concepts. FAS has
instituted a critical performance standard for all FAS managers for
GPRA and EEO planning and reporting. GPRA and EEO progress is monitored
through quarterly reports, using computer technology. FAS' overseas
personnel will be fully incorporated into this GPRA reporting
technology by fiscal year 2002.
Question. What are some examples of customer satisfaction measures
that you intend to use? Please include examples of both internal and
external customers.
Answer. For internal customers, FAS will perform two separate types
of surveys. The first is the Peer Evaluations of FAS' headquarters and
overseas offices' performance and customer satisfaction. The second
survey will be a Work-life survey in which the employees and managers
will be asked to identify trends in the work place which inhibit or
promote productivity and employee development.
For external customers, FAS has numerous listening sessions with
various customer groups to identify areas of improvement. For instance,
FAS works in partnership with the Private Voluntary Organization (PVO)
community in implementing the Food for Progress program. FAS has a
yearly listening session where ideas are shared and new initiatives
announced. These listening sessions have helped both groups (FAS and
the PVOs) to focus on reducing red tape and improving the focus of
specific projects. Also, FAS has listening sessions with U.S. banks
participating in the GSM Export Credit Guarantee program. Again, these
sessions have identified areas of improvement and cooperation. Finally,
as a measure of customer satisfaction with FAS' market intelligence
activities and publically distributed materials, two separate surveys
for internal government users and private sector users are planned for
fiscal year 2000. FAS managers are currently working with NASS/USDA
professional statisticians to develop a survey tool.
Question. How were the measurable goals of your fiscal year 2000
Annual Performance Plan used to develop your fiscal year 2001 budget?
Answer. The budget is a major factor in reaching our goal of
regaining a 22 percent market share of foreign imports by the year 2010
(the measurable target for General Goal 1: Expand market access for
U.S. agriculture . . .). Without competitive resources, it will be very
difficult to compete with our foreign competitors. U.S. market
promotion and development assistance is a pale second to support
provided by our major foreign competitors. At a minimum, the U.S. must
assure that trade agreements are fulfilled through U.S. monitoring and
enforcement. While FAS may fulfill it's annual performance goals, our
foreign competitors continue to take a larger proportion of new,
expanding market opportunities than the U.S. does, thereby eroding the
U.S.'s market share. We're winning our battles but losing the war. The
fiscal year 2001 FAS budget request asked for a marginal addition for
trade agreement monitoring and enforcement and market promotion and
development monies. However, since foreign government competitors
continue to out spend the U.S. by 3-to-1 in export promotion funding,
the U.S. share of total foreign imports, even through long-term foreign
imports are climbing, will likely decline even further.
Question. If a proposed budget number is changed, up or down, by
this committee, will you be able to indicate to us the likely impact
the change would have on the level of program performance and the
achievement of various goals?
Answer. Yes, for the most part, depending upon the size of the
increase/decrease, FAS would be able to estimate changes in the
associated performance goals and indicators. However, given current
systems and the lack of a cost-accounting system in USDA, most
responses will be estimates based upon knowledge of the business
instead of a detailed one-to-one relationship between the funding and
the specific output and/or outcome indicators.
Question. Do you have the technical capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results?
Answer. Yes, FAS has built a GPRA tracking, evaluation, and
reporting system that has proven to be an acceptable reporting tool,
but for stateside operations only. Every supervisor's critical job
performance standard requires GPRA planning, goal setting, and activity
evaluation for improvement, guided by the Strategic Operations staff.
The Administrator receives a quarterly agency-level GPRA report and
summary from the Strategic Operations staff, which is then followed by
a senior-level managers meeting to review progress.
Question. Who has access to the information--senior management
only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
Answer. All managers, information and correspondence personnel, the
legislative affairs staff, and the EEO staff have access passwords. In
addition, while only managers have the ability to ``write'' reports, by
the end of fiscal year 2000, all FAS employees will have access to
searching, viewing and printing GPRA reports by topic.
Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
performance-related data located throughout your various information
systems?
Answer. Some, high-level outcome results are derived from public
data resources, such as the resulting U.S. agricultural exports or the
reduction in the number of undernourished people, through Economic
Research Service annual studies. However, data on most performance
results are collected by the contributing divisions within the agency
and reported by them in the GPRA reporting system as a cumulative
success towards the agency-level annual targets. Each GPRA report
identifies the division manager to contact for data details.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget. Many agencies have indicated that their
present budget account structure makes it difficult to link dollars to
results in a clear and meaningful way.
Question. Have you faced such difficulty?
Answer. Because of the lack of a cost-accounting system to track
expenditures against the budget, it is difficult to show a direct one-
to-one relationship between expenditures and specific performance
measure results.
Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
structure were modified?
Answer. Yes it would and some changes can be made now, before a
cost-accounting system is in place, that would provide a better match.
Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
to this committee than the present structure?
Answer. Currently FAS' general program activities and budget relate
directly to our mission and legislated mandates. However, if additional
resources were available our current budget account structure could be
modified so that most expenditures are related to an appropriate GPRA
performance objective, and to performance goals for major program
activities within objectives. This would include expenses such as
travel and training, in addition to salaries and appropriated/non-
appropriated program expenditures. Such a modification would improve
managerial accountability by assessing the relative costs and benefits
of various program activities and performance goals,. This would
provide FAS better information to make future resource allocation
decisions.
Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. The adoption of a true cost accounting structure that
allows for the establishment of direct links between operating expenses
and program dollars in the budget and performance measures in the
performance plan would permit both the agency and the committee to
account for the actual costs and benefits of the various program
activities, and assist in setting spending priorities in future years.
Question. Spending significant resources on performance systems
appears to be a wasteful exercise if this information is not linked to:
(1) real data about what it costs to perform various government
functions; (2) how to allocate agency resources to perform these
functions. Could you comment on your agency's cost accounting expertise
and plans to link GPRA to the budget process?
Answer. All financial accounting and reporting support is provided
to FAS by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) on a reimbursable basis. As
such, FAS has no internal cost accounting expertise. With respect to
the linkage of GPRA and the budget process, FAS budget formulation has
been following the underlying GPRA tenets of strategic planning and
performance measurement/reporting since fiscal year 1998.
Question. What is the status of your agency's implementation of the
Managerial Cost Accounting Requirement, and are you using Activity-
Based Costing.
Answer. The Farm Service Agency has been exploring Activity-Based-
Costing for certain administrative services proved to FAS. However,
departmental standards for uniform development of Managerial Cost
Accounting systems have yet to be issued. Further work in this area is
dependent on issuance of unified departmental standards and the
significant budgetary resources that will be needed to develop and
implement these systems.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
and depreciation?
Answer. In the absence of uniform standards, it is difficult to say
what the reporting capabilities may be.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true cost
of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. Again, in the absence of uniform standards, it is difficult
to say what the reporting capabilities may be.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with any
particular goal reflect the full cost of all associated activities
performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead costs
fully allocated to goals?
Answer. Total, true cost accounting and specific performance goal
alignment are not in place.
Question. Please identify any significant regulatory reform
measures that have been put in place by your agency in conjunction with
the development of the agency's performance plan?
Answer. FAS' Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market
Development (FMD) program application process has changed significantly
over the last 3 years to align with the concepts and legislative
directions within the Results Act. These changes were made to improve
the operation of the program and coordinate program administration.
This effort, and the MAP/FMD programs, will be more fully integrated
with GPRA with the release of the fiscal year 2002 performance plan
that will have regional U.S. export share goals as its objectives--and
focused performance goals within regions for FAS programs, such as MAP/
FMD, that support the objective.
Question. Does your fiscal year 2000 performance plan--briefly or
by reference to your strategic plan--identify any external factors that
could influence goal achievement?
Answer. Yes, both FAS' strategic plan and annual performance plan
cite several external factors. These include overcoming foreign
competitors' continued use of export subsidies, direct credits and
credit guarantee programs, non-price export promotion, monopolistic
marketing boards, and various technical assistance programs. Additional
external factors outside FAS' span of control include variability in
crop production due to weather conditions, both at home and abroad;
effect of foreign exchange fluctuations on the price of U.S. products
abroad; political instability that may undermine demand in key
importing countries; and reductions in resources of other USDA and
Federal agencies with whom FAS works in partnership to fulfill its
mission and goals.
Question. If so, what steps have you identified to prepare,
anticipate and plan for such influences?
Answer. FAS, in its GPRA fiscal year 1999 Report and in
Congressional testimony, took the unusual step of placing our
performance goals and successes in perspective with our overall mission
of expanding U.S. agricultural export opportunities. While our annual
program activity goals were, in fact, successfully accomplished--and
will be in the future, the U.S. share of total foreign imports has been
falling since 1981. The current funding levels of U.S. agricultural
export promotion activities will cushion the continued decline in U.S.
market share. These efforts will be supported by FAS continuing to
effectively use the GSM program to inject liquidity into developing
country markets suffering short-term liquidity crunches similar to the
successful program activities in Asian countries during the fiscal year
1998 financial crisis. Additionally, FAS will use the Dairy Export
Incentive Program, Foreign Market Development and Market Access
Programs, and other activities.
Question. What impact might external factors have on your resource
estimates?
Answer. The impact will vary based on FAS' span of control over the
external factors.
Question. Through the development of the Performance Plan, has the
agency identified overlapping functions or program duplication? If so,
does the Performance plan identify the overlap or duplication?
Answer. Yes, in conjunction with other USDA agencies within the
Department dealing with SPS issues, FAS has, as a result of a General
Accounting Office review of USDA's approach to resolving SPS issues,
recently been tasked with the responsibility to support the Special
Assistant to the Secretary on International Affairs. The objective is
to coordinate USDA wide goals and objectives and facilitate the
integration of USDA-wide processes to improve USDA's efficiency and
effectiveness in prioritizing SPS issues and bringing them to
resolution. Since this initiative is currently ongoing, FAS/USDA is
actively determining how all of the USDA agencies will jointly plan and
coordinate this effort.
Question. Should agencies address management challenges and
potential duplication and overlapping functions in their GPRA plans,
and if so, how.
Answer. A mixed approach is necessary. Goals to address management
challenges are appropriate within agency plans to address their unique
issues and improvement plans. Overlapping issues and goals are
impossible for a single agency to resolve unilaterally and ought to be
lead and addressed at a level of authority over both or all the
particular agencies involved. Only department level authority can
effectively address and direct the distribution of work and program
breath by individual agencies or seek legislative changes as needed to
reduce overlap.
Question. To what extent has GPRA been used by agency leadership to
guide decision making?
Answer. For FAS the performance plan has been particularly useful
in addressing reductions in budget levels over the past 3 years,
especially for fiscal year 2000. Annual performance goals were reviewed
and activity areas were listed for possible resource reductions in
order to maintain sufficient staff levels to operate critical
activities. Operating resources for travel, training, and FAS's foreign
market store promotion activities, which had an fiscal year 1999 ``in-
store'' performance success rate of $22.5 of U.S. export sales per $1
of promotion activity, had to be cut by 50 percent. In addition, the
fiscal year 2001 budget testimony was enhanced with information
provided by the fiscal year 1999 strategic plan report. The report
brought into focus a number of agency general goal comparisons,
including the declining U.S. world market share of foreign imports and
highly funded, and very successful, export promotion support by other
governments that take ``first advantage'' of newly opened market
opportunities. The current strategic plan also exposed the current lack
of focus on horizontal (across-agency) planning and performance
results. The new fiscal year 2001 annual performance plan will be a
significant improvement over fiscal year 2000, focusing on market
access, development, and financial planning according to markets and
opportunities. It will illustrate how all FAS programs work in concert
to fulfill market share objectives for four geographic regions, by
helping U.S. firms take greater advantage of market access
opportunities.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that:
To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature to
allow for these kinds of uses?
Answer. The initial performance measures identified in FAS' fiscal
year 1999 Annual Performance Plan were focused primarily on outputs,
and were not sufficiently mature to allow use in measuring program
effectiveness. As the intent of GPRA is to learn and change behavior,
FAS leaders continued to work with all FAS managers to address the
immaturity of the fiscal year 1999 plan. By the second quarter,
managers had reviewed the fiscal year 1999 plan and combined
overlapping and duplicate measures, dropped measures that had little
management use, or identified a number of new, and better, outcome
goals--all in time to collect and report data on successes for fiscal
year 1999. Managers actually reduced the number of measures by 40
percent while focusing on real and important outcomes for programs and
activities. At the same time, managers were learning to use the newly
developed computer-based GPRA performance reporting system. The current
GPRA annual performance plan, as intended in the Results Act, is
maturing and changing and will be of greater use in the future.
Question. Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making
estimates for certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the
accuracy of resource estimates?
Answer. Yes, a major factor is the lack of a true cost-accounting
system which would provide accurate data on costs related to each
budgeted program activity.
Question. Are you requesting any waivers of non-statutory
administrative requirements?
Answer. No, we are not.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 2000 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. No, however, the new fiscal year 2001-2006 strategic plan
will be significantly improved.
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2001
----------
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 2001 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 for the hearing record on behalf of the ad hoc
coalition \1\ supporting sustained funding for title I of Public Law
480 at a baseline level which will preserve the program as a long-term
market development initiative for American agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ad hoc coalition is composed of the U.S.A. Rice Federation,
the National Association of Wheat Growers and the Wheat Export Trade
Education Committee, the National Corn Growers Association, the
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the American Soybean
Association, the National Sunflower Association, the U.S. Canola
Association, the American Maritime Congress, the Maritime Institute for
Research and Industrial Development, the Transportation Institute, TECO
Transport Corporation, and Liberty Maritime Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to its request for sustained title I funding, the
coalition strongly supports the administration's request for $837
million for title II donations. Under the Food for Progress program,
the administration estimates that $118 million in CCC funds will be
used to support Food for Progress donations in fiscal year 2001,
including $88 million for the purchase of commodities and $30 million
for transportation and other non-commodity costs. The coalition
welcomes this continued commitment of CCC funding for Food for
Progress.
Unfortunately, the administration again this year recommends no
funding for Public Law 480's title III program. While up to 15 percent
of funds available for title I and/or title II can be used to support
donations to least developed countries under title III, the coalition
believes the Administrator of the Agency for International Development
(``AID'') should aggressively carry out his duties under title III to
``negotiate and execute agreements with least developed countries to
provide commodities to such countries on a grant basis'' (7 U.S.C.
Sec. 1727(b)), and should have a sustained baseline level of funding
for this purpose.
From fiscal year 1991 through fiscal year 1997, the commodity value
of all title III grant assistance was $977.9 million, according to U.S.
AID's annual reports. This represents an average of $139.7 million per
year under the title III program, on a commodity value basis. In the
coalition's view, Congress should establish a baseline level of funding
for title III, and direct the Administrator to fulfill his statutory
mandate.
The principal focus of this testimony, as noted above, is to
request that title I funding for fiscal year 2001 be restored to a
sustainable level for market development for American agricultural
products. The direct loan level for fiscal year 2000 covered by new
budget authority for title I, after a 0.38 percent adjustment, is only
$145.3 million. The administration proposes to increase this amount to
nearly $160 million for fiscal year 2001. At the very least, Congress
should accept the administration's recommendation for increased
funding, and should evaluate carefully the need to increase
significantly the title I program level in each succeeding year.
large section 416(b) donations have depressed title i program levels
The actual experience under title I during fiscal years 1999 and
2000 has been distorted by events which were unanticipated when
Congress appropriated funding for the program. Under the President's
Food Aid Initiative, approximately $648 million was transferred from
CCC to title I for humanitarian assistance to the Russian Federation.
In addition to this increased title I programming, section 416(b)
donations in fiscal year 1999 reached a record 5.5 million metric tons,
including more than 5 million metric tons of wheat and wheat products.
According to the White House press release of February 10, 2000,
overall food donations reached nearly 9 million metric tons in fiscal
year 1999, and food donations planned for fiscal year 2000 will total
about the same tonnage.
Because of record-level donations under section 416(b) authority,
the demand for title I program shipments (other than to Russia)
declined significantly in fiscal year 1999. According to USDA sources,
the unobligated balances carried over from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal
year 2000 included more than $98.6 million for title I subsidy and $8.2
million for title I ocean freight differential. The carryover for the
title II program was in excess of $71 million. These large carryover
balances were the result of extraordinary events, and should not be
considered indicative of a systemic decline in demand for either a
long-term concessional sales program or traditional food aid funding.
For reasons which are not apparent, the administration chose to
transfer $648 million from the CCC to fund the title I component of the
Russian food aid initiative, rather than use unobligated balances in
the title I account until such balances were exhausted. From the
perspective of the Congress, title I should retain its vitality and
significance, as the extraordinary Russian commitment to the program
demonstrates.
the title i program promotes long-term market development
Mr. Chairman, the 1996 Farm Bill directs the Secretary of
Agriculture to give priority in negotiating agreements under title I to
developing countries that have the demonstrated potential to become
commercial markets for competitively priced U.S. agricultural
commodities. With the availability of section 416(b) donations, title
II donations, and Food for Progress arrangements, the primary purpose
of the title I program has become market development for American
farmers. The concessional sales market of today will become the
commercial market of tomorrow. In an intensely competitive world
agricultural marketplace, the United States must use its concessional
sales program to gain access, establish a foothold and build
relationships upon which future commercial trade in agricultural
commodities can depend.
Under the Public Law 480 title I program, the United States has
made concessional sales of commodities with a total value of about $31
billion since 1955. Along with other export enhancement programs, title
I has proved to be a catalyst for strong, long-term growth in U.S.
agricultural exports. Over the life of the title I program, from 1955
through 1999, the total commodity value of U.S. agricultural exports
has been more than $1.1 trillion. With the benefit of sustained market-
development initiatives, the value of U.S. farm exports rose to an all-
time high of nearly $60 billion in 1996. Unfortunately, commodity
exports have declined since then, due to economic upheavals in Asia and
other factors. This year the value of U.S. agricultural exports will
not exceed $49 billion, about the same as last year's level.
The United States must intensify its efforts to develop new
overseas markets for U.S. farm commodities. With world food stocks at
high levels, deeply depressed farm prices, and strong competition from
a host of producing countries, the need for enhanced market development
funding has seldom been greater. Congress should sharply increase its
market development program funding, including funding for the title I
program--a program that has proved its worth over decades of
experience.
the sharp decline in title i funding
Mr. Chairman, the Public Law 480 title I concessional sales program
has had an illustrious history of Congressional support and success in
the marketplace. As shown on Chart I (attached), title I shipments
reached their peak commodity value of $1.3 billion in 1965. From 1957
through 1990, in fact, the commodity value of title I shipments fell
below $600 million in only a single year. The parallel between
sustained title I funding and growth in agricultural exports cannot be
ignored or dismissed. The linkage between title I market development
and subsequent commercial trade is apparent and unbroken over the
decades.
Throughout the 1980s, Congress maintained high funding levels for
the title I program. From 1980 to 1990, in every year except one, the
commodity value of title I shipments exceeded $700 million. See Chart
II. Unfortunately, title I program levels experienced a sharp drop at
the beginning of the last decade--from $725.3 million in 1990 to $395.3
million in 1991. The value of commodities shipped dropped below $200
million for the first time in 1995, and (except for extraordinary CCC-
funded Russian shipments in 1999) has remained near this historically
low level since then. See Chart III.
Mr. Chairman, the title I funding requested for fiscal year 2001
represents little more than 12 percent of the 1965 program level, when
the title I concessional sales record was established. In inflation-
adjusted dollars, the title I program has lost about 97 percent of its
value to American farmers since the record-setting year of 1965. The
coalition believes that it is important now to stabilize title I
funding, stop the persistent downward trend, and begin to increase
resources devoted to this critical and proven program. With this in
mind, we recommend an increase in funding for fiscal year 2001 as part
of a long-term commitment to market development.
a renewed commitment to market development for american agriculture
Mr. Chairman, Congress has maintained a strong bipartisan
commitment to market development for U.S. agricultural commodities
since World War II. Until recent years, this commitment included high
funding levels for the Food for Peace title I concessional sales
program. Until the mid-1960s, title I shipments accounted for about 20
percent of the annual value of all U.S. agricultural exports. As
recently as fiscal year 1990, as shown on the attached Charts, title I
export values regularly exceeded $700 million on an annual basis.
The title I concessional sales program was a principal catalyst for
market development through the 1970s, when the total value of U.S.
agricultural exports increased nearly six-fold--from about $7 billion
in 1970 to $40.5 billion in 1980. The program was funded at high levels
during periods of war and peace, even during periods of large Federal
budget deficits. Throughout the Cold War period, America's commitment
to title I never wavered, due principally to the demonstrated value of
the program as a pathfinder to commercial trade relationships with a
host of developing countries.
The time has come, Mr. Chairman, to reemphasize the importance of
concessional sales and to revitalize the title I program. The time has
come for a renewed commitment to this historic initiative, a program
that has blazed a trail for billions of dollars in commercial shipments
of American agricultural products. However, in making this renewed
commitment, both Congress and the administration should seek to improve
the program's effectiveness in the economy of the Twenty-First Century.
Under current criteria, a developing country is considered eligible
for Public Law 480 title I if it has a shortage of foreign exchange
earnings and has difficulty meeting all of its food needs through
commercial channels. The program managers at FAS should review country
eligibility standards, ensuring that all eligible countries are
actively engaged. There must surely be a substantial market for title I
concessional sales--during 1999 and 2000, donations of food, according
to the administration's announcements, will approach 18 million metric
tons. Many countries currently receiving section 416(b) donations
should graduate to title I concessional sales arrangements in short
order. The shift from section 416(b) donations to title I participation
could be rapid, and both FAS and Congress should prepare for this
eventuality.
There has been legitimate concern that many eligible countries are
reluctant to sign title I agreements following allocation at the
beginning of a fiscal year. Perhaps FAS should establish a reasonable
deadline for participation under concessional sales terms. The
allocations for countries choosing not to participate could be shifted
to other countries, well in advance of the close of the fiscal year.
This reform could reduce the carryover of unobligated balances, and
help ensure that program benefits are extended to eligible countries
that want to participate under reasonable terms and conditions.
As Congress turns to farm legislation next year, the need for more
program flexibility should be addressed. The current cap of 500,000
metric tons of shipments under Food for Progress seems to make little
sense. If this cap were lifted, title I funding in greater amounts
could be allocated to Food for Progress, either on long-term credit or
grant terms. This and other reforms could strengthen the title I
concessional sales program, along with its companion program, Food for
Progress.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, the United States has shipped food assistance in
record amounts over the past 18 months, and large shipments are
expected to continue throughout the remainder of this year. Congress
and the administration deserve great credit for this humanitarian
effort. But extraordinary food aid shipments will not last forever.
American farmers require strong commercial markets to maintain their
share of world trade in agricultural commodities.
In 1996, U.S. agricultural exports accounted for nearly 23 percent
of total world agricultural trade by commodity value. As noted above,
the value of U.S. agricultural exports has declined by more than 18
percent since the record was set in 1996. Farm prices are down.
Overseas competitors have enjoyed record crops. Traditional markets
have been destabilized by economic upheavals. The response must include
a renewed commitment to proven market development strategies--
particularly title I of Public Law 480.
Mr. Chairman, the coalition urges this Subcommittee to begin
restoring the historical commitment to Food for Peace. Our future
markets and sustained prosperity for American agriculture will depend
upon this initiative, along with others designed to increase farm
income over the long term.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ALACHUA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Chairman: Thank you for allowing the Alachua County Board of
Commissioners to submit written testimony before your Subcommittee
regarding a major initiative for which the County seeks your support.
Alachua County has embarked on a local land conservation program,
which the County Commission has selected as one of its highest program
priorities for 2000. A separate citizen-initiated referendum called
Alachua County Forever is anticipated to raise $17 million from ad
valorem property taxes to match Federal and State land acquisition
funds. The County's Land Conservation Advisory Committee (appointed in
November, 1999) is finalizing a system to prioritize which local lands
should be conserved, and is creating the tools to accomplish these
goals. Eastern Alachua County has been included in the St. John's River
American Heritage River designation, with three suggested projects. A
number of eco-tourism and recreational opportunities are being pursued
to capitalize on the County's protection of its natural areas. The
County, in cooperation with the City of Gainesville, is actively
seeking Federal and State partnerships to achieve its land conservation
goal of an emerald necklace comprising gems of conserved natural areas
throughout this part of ``the Real Florida.''
Land acquisition priorities.--Alachua County has five large-scale
projects (5,000+ acres) on Florida's Conservation and Recreation Lands
(CARL) acquisition list. These include:
--Paynes Prairie additions (a large freshwater wetland and watershed,
operated as a State preserve)
--San Felasco Hammock additions (a mature hammock and sandhill
forest, with ravines)
--Watermelon Pond (an upland sandhill and scrub forest with important
ephemeral wetlands)
--Newnans Lake (a diverse flatwoods forest surrounding a lake with
declining water quality)
--Lochloosa Forest (a flatwoods forest, largely in commercial
production surrounding two large lakes)
Each of these CARL projects has outstanding land acquisition needs,
with State matching money available from Florida Forever (formerly
Preservation 2000). The lack of a local source of matching funds has
hurt the ability of Alachua County's projects to compete favorably with
other local governments which have local land conservation programs, so
Federal matching funds (either grants or loans) would greatly assist in
finishing the acquisition of these lands before development further
fragment them. If the Alachua County Forever referendum passes in
November 2000, the County will have a source of matching funds. Federal
agencies could help by ``challenging'' the County with the promise of
matching funds for projects of national significance, such as Paynes
Prairie.
For this initiative, the City of Gainesville and Alachua County
have identified three project areas. The first is Newnans Lake, a large
lake in a semi-wild setting with mysteriously increasing
eutrophication, yet spectacular recreational and scenic resources.
Specific projects requiring funding assistance include: investigations
into water quality issues, remedying muck build-up (possibly through a
draw-down or mechanical removal), land acquisition (including less-
than-fee opportunities with large forestry companies), a multi-user
trail system circling the lake and connecting two existing rail-trails,
and the designation and enhancement of an informal, but exceptional
canoe trail connecting Newnans and Orange Lake down Prairie Creek and
the River Styx. The St. Johns River Water Management District is a
willing partner, having made substantial commitments in the past and
with expressed interest in continuing to conserve the lands and waters
of this area, while enhancing public access.
The second project is to clean-up and mitigate Sweetwater Branch,
and its impacts on Paynes Prairie (a National Natural Landmark) as well
as the Floridan Aquifer. As one of the major watersheds flowing through
eastern Gainesville, this creek has all the problems of urban
stormwater and wastewater outfall into natural areas. While substantial
funds have been received from Federal sources for the Depot Stormwater
Park, the cost of cleaning up this brownfield area is considerably more
than the local governments can handle.
The third project is to clean-up and mitigate impacts to Hogtown
Creek, the major watershed in western Gainesville. The City and State
have acquired over $3 million of property comprising the Hogtown Creek
Greenway, however funds are needed for development of recreational
trails, and for sedimentation control. We are seeking an $10 million in
Federal support.
We hope that the Subcommittee will find this critically important
project worthy of your support.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
The American Chemical Society (ACS) would like to thank Chairman
Thad Cochran and Senator Herb Kohl for the opportunity to submit
testimony for the record on the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2001.
As you may know, ACS is a non-profit scientific and educational
organization, chartered by Congress, representing 161,000 individual
chemical scientists and engineers. The world's largest scientific
society, ACS advances the chemical enterprise, increases public
understanding of chemistry, and brings its expertise to bear on state
and national matters. ACS firmly believes that no investment the
government makes generates a higher rate of return for the economy than
research and development (R&D). In fact, economic experts maintain that
today's unprecedented economic growth would not have been realized but
for the substantial research investments by the public and private
sectors over the past few decades. Looking ahead, ACS is concerned that
constant dollar declines in federal support for basic research over the
past decade, particularly in the physical sciences, have weakened the
roots of innovation in all fields and put future economic growth at
risk. In order to sustain our technological leadership and living
standards, increased funding for basic research should be a top
priority for use of the non-Social Security budget surpluses. As a
framework for increasing R&D funding, ACS supports doubling federal
spending on research within a decade, as well as balanced funding among
different areas of science.
u.s. department of agriculture budget recommendations
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) plays a key role
in the nation's R&D enterprise. The research supported by the
Department through its in-house laboratories and extramural grants is
critical to the biological and physical sciences and provides the
scientific foundation for a vast array of advances being made in
agriculture and related industries. At a time when greater investments
in agricultural research are necessary to improve environmental
quality, food safety, agricultural productivity, and renewable chemical
and energy resources, ACS is concerned that USDA's research budget has
decreased 9 percent in constant dollars over the last 5 years. To
reverse this decline, ACS recommends that research supported by USDA's
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) increase by 7 percent or
greater in fiscal year 2001.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
The Society strongly supports the request for an increase of $64
million for ARS for fiscal year 2001, a 7.7-percent increase over last
year. Strengthening USDA's main in-house research is important for
developing the scientific knowledge that provides the foundation for
new technologies produced by the private sector. ARS scientists conduct
fundamental and advanced research to address some of the most pressing
problems in food quality and safety, pest and disease resistance, and
human nutrition.
Increased funding would help ARS continue solving problems for
agriculture producers and consumers, while meeting the food and fiber
requirements of our nation in a better, safer, and more nutritious way.
ARS research can accelerate environmentally sound production practices,
increase our understanding of global climate change's impacts on food
production, and improve air quality. ACS also supports ARS's key role
in funding research on bioenergy and biobased products. This research
would benefit the environment by advancing cleaner energy sources that
reduce our dependency on imported oil and lower greenhouse gas
emissions. Moreover, the development of such fuels and other biobased
materials and commercial products--including chemicals, adhesives,
lubricants, and building materials--can potentially increase farm
income and productivity growth by advancing non-food uses for
agricultural technology.
cooperative state research, education and extension service
ACS believes it is extremely important for USDA to expand its
support for competitive, peer-reviewed extramural research at colleges
and universities. CSREES provides leadership for and develops research
and education partnerships with states, land-grant universities, and
other research and education institutions. These partnerships are
focused on national and regional priorities.
ACS particularly supports the administration's request for a 26-
percent increase ($150 million) for the National Research Initiative
(NRI), USDA's hallmark competitive research grants program. The NRI
supports highly meritorious fundamental and mission-oriented research
in critical areas such as genetics, biobased products, food safety, and
pest and disease management. This program has enormous potential to
contribute to major breakthroughs in agricultural production but has
been hampered by underfunding. Expanding resources for NRI are needed
to increase grant size and duration and to encourage outstanding
agricultural and other researchers to submit proposals.
CONCLUSION
Overall, USDA research provides a greater understanding of the
risks associated with our food sources and helps in the formation of
scientifically sound policies that reduce our exposure to harmful
substances while enhancing technological advances in food production
and distribution. Investing in USDA R&D programs can ensure that U.S.
agriculture will remain competitive in international markets, an
important factor in ensuring a strong U.S. economy. Growth in USDA R&D
funding will help ensure a safe food supply, improve the environmental
performance of the sector, and help the food, fiber, and chemical
sectors compete internationally.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
The American Farm Bureau Federation has identified three USDA
program areas for which adequate fiscal year 2000 funding is essential.
They are:
--programs key to the proper implementation of the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA);
--programs to expand foreign markets for agriculture; and,
--funding for research to keep American agriculture competitive.
These priorities are highlighted in the first portion of this
statement. The second portion contains a list of additional programs
supported by Farm Bureau.
food quality protection act
Farm Bureau supports the administration's request for $107.3
million to fund USDA's Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
implementation activities. Proper implementation of this law based on
sound science is critical to assure the availability of vital crop
protection products.
Agriculture Research Service (ARS).--A total of $27.131 million is
needed for FQPA activities under the ARS as follows: $6 million for
area wide Integrated Pest Management (IPM) research, $2 million for
minor use clearance (IR-4), $16.5 million for alternatives to methyl
bromide, and $2.58 million for Office of Pest Management Policy.
Cooperative State Research and Extension Service (CSREES).--A total
of $55.3 million is needed for FQPA activities under CSREES as follows:
$2.73 million for IPM research grant, $12.27 million for IPM
application, $4.2 million for pest management alternatives, $260,000
for expert IPM decision support system, $10.7 million for minor crop
pest management (IR-4), $3 million for crops at risk from FQPA
implementation, $10 million for FQPA risk avoidance and mitigation
program for major food crop systems, $5 million for methyl bromide
transition program, $1 million for regional crop information and policy
centers, $4.64 million for Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (PIAP),
and $1.5 million for pesticide applicator training.
Economic Research Service (ERS).--A total of $2.5 million is needed
for FQPA activities under ERS as follows: $500,000 for IPM research,
$1.7 million for pesticide use analysis, and $300,000 for National Ag
Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP).
Other.--Additional funding for FQPA implementation activities is
needed as follows: $7.3 million for National Ag Statistics Service
(NASS) pesticide use surveys, $754,000 for Food Safety Inspection
Service (FSIS) increased residue sampling and analysis, $14.28 million
for Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS) and the Pesticide Data Program
(PDP).
EXPORT PROGRAMS
Creating new overseas markets and expanding those that we have is
essential for a healthy agricultural economy. Continued funding of
export development programs is fundamental to improving farm income,
both in the short and long term. We recommend maximum funding of all
export development programs consistent with our commitments under the
World Trade Organization (WTO) trade rules.
Public Law 480.--We support increased funding for Public Law 480
programs, the primary means by which the United States provides foreign
food assistance. Public Law 480 should be supported at no less than the
$1.1078 billion recommended by the Administration. Enormous opportunity
exists for humanitarian and public relations benefits, in addition to
an opportunity to impact market prices. The Public Law 480 program
should not only be used to help move product to traditional customers,
but also be increased to include customers who may not currently
qualify for General Sales Manager (GSM) credit.
GSM Credits.--The USDA budget includes funding for GSM credits at a
program level of $3.792 billion. However, recent spending has been much
less. Farm Bureau supports full use of funds available for GSM credits
during fiscal year 2001.
Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market Development Program
(FMD).--Congress should fully fund the MAP at $90 million and provide
necessary funding for FMD. These programs need the expertise of a fully
supported Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) that is expanded to cover
all existing and potential market posts.
Export Enhancement Program (EEP).--The FAIR Act provided $1.5
billion over seven years for the EEP, but the administration has used
little of those funds. The fiscal year 2001 budget figure for EEP is
$478 million. The Administration should use EEP to its maximum to
maintain foreign markets for U.S. farmers.
Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP).--DEIP allows U.S. dairy
producers to compete with foreign nations that subsidize their
commodity exports. Farm Bureau supports the $66 million for DEIP as
recommended by the administration.
Inspections.--Food safety programs, including inspections of
foreign commodities, should be funded at the highest levels possible.
Funding should be at least the current budget level of $771 million.
Sanitary/Phytosanitary Management.--We support the Administrations
request of $9.5 million for Sanitary and Phytosanitary Management
within APHIS-International Services to strengthen international foreign
animal disease surveillance and intelligence gathering for risk
analysis for threats to the U.S. industries.
Codex Alimentarius Commission.--We support a minimum of $2 million
for Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to increase U.S.
leadership in the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Codex develops the
international food safety standards for the World Trade Organization.
Funding is needed to ensure full U.S. participation in Codex functions.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
Agricultural research and the distribution of that research to
producers is critical to the future of our industry. One of the areas
of agreement when the 1996 farm bill was enacted was that funding for
agricultural research would be increased to allow U.S. producers to
maintain their competitive position in world markets.
National Research Initiative (NRI).--Farm Bureau supports the
administration's request of $150 million for the National Research
Initiative Competitive Grants Program to the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). This research
provides the keys to the long-term prosperity as farmers and ranchers
strive for greater involvement in more stages of the food supply chain
and effective use of new technology.
Animal Genomics.--We support the administration's request of $1.5
million for animal genomic research in the Agricultural Research
Service (ARS.) This will allow ARS to focus on developing genomic
approaches for improving economical traits of importance in livestock
and poultry that affect animal health and reproductive efficiency.
National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring.--We support the
administration's request of $6.3 million to the Food and Drug
Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) for the Food Safety
Initiative. Within this initiative is increased funding for the
National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS). NARMS is
the data collection method that is being used to monitor the level of
antimicrobial resistance that will be used to implement science-based
standards.
Aquaculture.--The annual value of aquaculture production in 1998
was just under $1 billion. To stimulate the technology development and
enhance domestic production, aquaculture research is vital. The four
regional CSREES aquaculture centers should be funded at $7 million as
authorized by Congress. USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
funding for aquaculture research should continue at $19.3 million so
that projects begun last year can be completed.
National Animal Health Emergency Management System.--The National
Animal Health Emergency Management System was developed in cooperation
with the states, industry and the veterinary profession. We support the
administration's request of $5.9 million to APHIS for this program.
This will enhance APHIS's emergency preparedness and response
capabilities to address emergency animal disease issues that threaten
the U.S. food supply.
Emerging Diseases and Exotic Pests Research.--We support the
administration's request of $3.8 million for Agricultural Research
Service (ARS) funding for emerging diseases and exotic pests research.
The research funding request is urgently needed to develop rapid
diagnostics, vaccines, and products necessary to protect our U.S.
commodities. Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance: We support for
the administration's request of $69.5 million to the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for the Animal Health Monitoring and
Surveillance program line item. There should be specific disease line
items for aquaculture, brucellosis, pseudorabies, scrapie and
tuberculosis. We support $17.7 million for veterinary diagnostics and
operation of the APHIS National Veterinary Services Laboratory in Ames,
Iowa.
ARS & APHIS Laboratory Facilities.--We support the administration's
request of $9 million for the Joint NADC-NVSL-CVB Modernization Plan at
Ames, Iowa. This proposal for a joint APHIS and ARS research facility
is important to meet national needs for research, diagnosis and product
testing for animal health. Secondly, we support the Administration's
request of $7 million for the general maintenance and continued
modernization of the ARS foreign animal disease laboratory at Plum
Island, New York, and to provide $3.2 million for the APHIS funding
portion of the ARS Plum Island facility. The unique biocontainment
facility at Plum Island allows scientists to work safely with foreign
and emerging disease agents.
Binational Agricultural Research and Development (BARD).--BARD
should be funded at the administration's recommended level of $2
million.
OTHER ISSUES
Conservation Operations.--We are concerned about adequate Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) conservation operation funding.
Conservation program delivery and technical assistance should be a
priority for NRCS funding. No new initiatives should be funded in the
conservation operations budget. Emphasis should be placed on
traditional technical assistance and the development of reliable
resource data for assisting producers to deal with nutrient management.
We support funding for technical assistance under the Grazing Lands
Conservation Initiative.
Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP).--With regard to
conservation programs under the Commodity Credit Corporation Program
(CCC), we believe that emphasis should be placed on EQIP. EQIP is an
important program for assisting producers dealing with increased water
quality regulation. We support EQIP funding as proposed by the
administration to bring spending to $325 million.
Forestry Incentive Program (FIP).--We oppose the Administration's
zero funding for the Forestry Incentive Program and suggest funding of
$5 million.
Farmland Protection Program.--We support the proposed new funding
of $65 million for the farmland protection program.
Ag in the Classroom.--Most students no longer have firsthand farm
experience and, therefore, lack a basic understanding of our food and
fiber system. The Agriculture in the Classroom program provides real
world examples that teach about agriculture production food safety,
nutrition and healthy lifestyles, and career opportunities. CSREES
funding for this program has been locked at $208,000 for more than 7
years. Farm Bureau supports an increase to $1,000,000 for Ag in the
Classroom.
Mandatory Price Reporting.--Farm Bureau supports $5.9 million as
proposed by the administration to continue mandatory price reporting
for livestock. Increased market news reporting is needed to ensure that
all participants have the same access to accurate market information.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA).--
Farm Bureau supports the administration's proposed $1.2 million
increase in funding for efforts to determine anti-competitive behavior
and $1.3 million increase to investigate time-sensitive financial,
trade and anti-competitive behavior issues.
Wildlife Services.--Wildlife Services should be funded at $12.6
million for methods development, and $31.9 million for operations.
Aerial Application Technology Program.--Farm Bureau supports $1.3
million for the ARS Aerial Application Technology Program. This funding
is needed because of the significant and necessary role aerial
application provides to our nation's farmers and because of the need to
increase the environmental safety of aerial applications.
Farm Labor Housing Program.--Providing housing for migrant farm
workers continues to be a difficult challenge for farm employers and
community groups alike. We support the administration's budget proposal
to increase the Farm Labor Housing loan programs (Section 514) by $5
million to $30 million and the Farm Labor Housing grant program by $1
million to $15 million.
Nutrition Assistance Program for Puerto Rico.--Farm Bureau supports
efforts to implement an electronic benefits transfer (EBT) distribution
system for the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) in Puerto Rico, but
is concerned about the potential misuse of federal funds intended for
nutritional purposes that are currently being distributed in Puerto
Rico. We support report language to direct a minimum of 75 percent of
NAP funds to be spent on food at businesses that sell food items.
Rural Cooperative Grants.--We support an increase in funding for
grants for rural cooperatives from the $7 million to $11.5 million.
Cooperatives are one way that farmers and ranchers can increase income
by retaining ownership of raw agricultural products and turning them
into value added products.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
allowing me the opportunity to provide testimony for the record in
connection with the fiscal year 2001 budget hearings. My name is Steven
M. Hollis. I am the President of AFGE Local 3354 at the United States
Department of Agriculture, Rural Development and Farm Service Agency
(FSA). I hope my comments are helpful to your subcommittee.
rural america should get its fair share!
Family farmers, the ill-housed rural poor, and small rural
communities must receive a share of the budget surplus because they are
not sharing in the overall growth of the economy! We urge you to do
whatever you can to make sure the budget allocations for agriculture
and rural development are sufficient to enable the appropriations
requested below.
That must be our first request to the Members of this Subcommittee.
In addition, we ask Members of Congress to ensure that our tax dollars
get to the majority of low-income rural Americans who need help and
opportunity. Too much of the recent disaster funding has gone to
wealthy landowners, and too little has gone to rural citizens who may
no longer be able to farm. The Rural Development mission area--its
programs and staff--is just as critical to rural economic recovery as
are the Farm Service Agency programs and staff.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD GET ITS FAIR SHARE!
Increased Salaries & Expenses funding for the Department of
Agriculture's Rural Development mission area is AFGE's No. 1
priority for the Subcommittee's Appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, and Related Agencies! Congress should at
least, appropriate the $581 million for Rural Development
salaries and expenses in 2001, which was requested in the
President's Budget. This is an increase of $47 million, from
almost $534 million in 2000.
WE CAN'T DELIVER ANY MORE PROGRAMS WITHOUT MORE SALARIES & EXPENSE
FUNDING.
Both the House fiscal year 2000 Supplemental Appropriation bill,
and the President's fiscal year 2001 budget, include much-needed
increases in program funding for Water and Waste Grants, Community
Facility Grants, Section 515 Multi-Family Housing Loans, the Rental
Assistance Program, Section 502 Single Family Housing Loans, Section
504 Very Low Income Repair Loans, Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants,
Rural Housing Assistance Grants, Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker
Grants, and Rural Electrification Loans. These Rural Development (RD)
loan and grant programs are just as important, even more so in terms of
number of people reached, as the various programs delivered by FSA.
Please don't forget--RD needs staff to deliver these programs, just
like FSA needs staff to deliver its programs!
Since 1995, the Congress has increased Rural Development programs
by 69 percent overall; yet, our staffing levels have been cut by 28
percent.
Our servicing areas in the Field, and our workload in the National
and Finance Offices, has doubled or tripled. With decreased staffing,
customer service suffers. Almost no funds have been allocated to
training for the past three years!
The situation has deteriorated to the point where State Directors
have had to stop all overtime work. Use of privately owned vehicles for
official travel has been prohibited, and use of government-owned
vehicles has been limited to 1200 miles per month. In most states,
these restrictions on travel and overtime make it next to impossible
for our employees to do our jobs! Timely inspections are not completed.
Interviews of potential borrowers have to be conducted by phone. Night
meetings of housing developers, water districts, and community
development committees cannot be attended.
It is laborers and white and blue-collar workers that are the
infrastructure of our rural communities, in addition to our farmers. If
we can't provide housing, utilities, and jobs to enable them to be
productive taxpaying citizens, how can we say the cost outweighs the
benefits? Low-income rural Americans need public servants, with
sufficient expense funds to support travel, overtime, training and
information technology, to deliver these housing, community, and
business development programs.
``If we're going to have meaningful programs supporting family
farmers and rural communities, we need to maintain USDA's
infrastructure of county offices, with sufficient staff, that is
responsible and accountable to deliver these programs.'' Bill
Christison, President, National Family Farm Coalition
Increases requested in the President's Budget for rural housing,
community development, and farm loan and grant programs should
be appropriated, with minor adjustments.
AFGE urges Members of Congress to appropriate funds to support the
following program requests in the President's fiscal year 2001 Budget:
$1.3 billion in direct loans and $3.7 billion in guaranteed
loans for single family housing.
For the first time since 1993, this is a much-needed increase above
the previous year program levels of $1.1 billion in direct loans and
$3.2 billion in guaranteed loans. It is still way below even the 1994
levels, however, as shown in the enclosed chart.
For many low income rural families the only opportunity they have
to improve their housing conditions is through housing assistance
offered by the USDA's rural housing programs. The average borrower
income for the 502 SFH program is $15,000. In fiscal year 1997, 44
percent of the loans under this program went to female-headed
households and one-third went to minority households. Under the self-
help housing program, incomes are about 10-20 percent lower and two-
thirds of the families participating in self-help housing are
minorities and one-third are female-headed households.
Since its inception in 1950, the Section 502 direct program has
produced over 1.9 million units of safe, decent, sanitary housing and
supported a variety of innovative housing development opportunities
such as the mutual self-help housing program. Over the past ten years,
however, the program's production capacity has declined 41 percent,
from 26,203 units in 1988 to only 15,561 in 1998. It is even more
startling to compare the paltry 1998 production to the over 132,000
units produced in 1976.
The budget authority necessary to support the higher program levels
increases from about $118 million in 2000 to about $216 million in
2001, due to an increase in interest rates and net of a proposal to
raise the fee on guaranteed loans from 1 percent to 2 percent. AFGE
would prefer not to see this guaranteed loan fee increased. The
guaranteed rural housing loan program attempts to aid families with
good jobs and decent credit but with very little to no cash to become
homeowners and contributing taxpayers in their communities. Pushing a
closing cost total to as much as 6 percent ($3,000 to $4,000) could
take the program out of reach for many younger families, or older
families on fixed income. It is our understanding that the current 1.0
percent fee has been more than adequate to offset any loss claims we
have experienced to date in this program.
$120 million for direct loans and $200 million in
guaranteed loans for multi-family housing, plus
$680 million for rural rental assistance payments.
The Section 515 Multifamily Housing Loan Program would be funded at
$120 million in 2001, which compares to about $114 million available
for 2000. This program provides direct loans to construct and maintain
multifamily rental projects that serve low and very low-income
families. Projects receive payment assistance to make rents affordable.
The average annual income of a Section 515 tenant is $7,300. The 2001
budget provides for the construction of 1,400 new units and the
rehabilitation of over 4,100 existing units.
The Section 538 Multifamily Housing Loan Guarantee Program
guarantees loans that are made by private lenders. It differs from the
Section 515 Direct Loan Program in that the projects it finances serve
tenants with incomes up to 115 percent of the area median, rather than
those below 80 percent of the area median. The 2001 request of $200
million would provide for the construction of over 6,400 units.
The 2001 budget provides $680 million for the Rental Assistance
Program, an increase of $40 million over the 2000 level. Rental
assistance is provided to project owners to make up the difference
between the 30 percent of income the low-income tenant pays and the
rent required for the project owner to meet debt servicing
requirements. The 2001 budget provides funding for the renewal of over
42,000 units, support for new section 515 and farm labor housing
projects, and limited funding for servicing existing projects.
It costs money to house the poorest of the poor, both construction
and rental assistance. We subsidize homeownership some $98 billion per
year in the form of interest deductions. Rebuilding the 515 program
costs less than homelessness or nursing homes.
A total of $50 million is proposed for Farm Labor Housing
Programs, with $30 million for direct loans, $15
million for grants, and $5 million for emergency
assistance to migrant farmworkers.
This is an increase of almost $3 million from the $30 million in
loans and $17 million in grants provided in 2000, which included $3
million in grants and $5 million in loans in emergency funding. The $50
million level will improve the availability and quality of housing for
one of the most poorly housed groups in the country.
$507 million in grants, $1.03 billion in direct loans, and
$75 million in guaranteed loans for water and waste
disposal projects.
$5 million for the Rural Cooperative Development Grants
(RCDG) program
$10 million for Outreach and Technical Assistance Program
for Minority Farmers
The Outreach and Technical Assistance program is the most effective
tool developed to carry out the mission of USDA as the technical
provider for small farmers. For a very small investment, the program
has significant multiplier effects in poor communities where there
exist few other possibilities for sustainable economic development.
$700 million for direct farm operating loans and $2.5
billion for farm operating loan guarantees.
Since the loan limits have been raised to $717,000, and since the
farm economy continues in depression mode, this funding level may not
be sufficient.
Our major concern regarding farm operating loans is the years of
eligibility restriction placed on direct operating loans in the current
Farm Bill. As Congress begins to write new farm policy legislation, we
urge the Agriculture Committees to remove the restrictions on years of
eligibility for direct farm operating loans, at least for limited
resource farmers. Many small farmers may not be able to continue in
business from year to year without the option of direct operating
loans.
$128 million for direct farm ownership loans
Funding for direct farm ownership loans would decrease from $178
million in 2000 to $128 million in 2001. The magnitude of this
reduction reflects the fact that there was some unused carryover in
2000. We have the following concerns regarding the unused funds from
2000, and the funding level of the direct farm ownership loans:
In many states, as much as 70 percent of the farm land will change
ownership over the next fifteen years. Unless the direct farm ownership
loan program is significantly enhance, most of that farm land will go
to the existing large farms, and the benefits and productivity of
family farming will continue to be wiped out.
On the other hand, under current farm policy (which determines
commodity prices as shown by USDA data on the last 25 year trends),
100-year low commodity prices make it next to impossible for socially
disadvantaged or beginning farmers to purchase land. What many smaller
existing farmers need, but can't get through guaranteed private sector
loans, is the ability to use their real estate to refinance existing
debt. The 1996 Farm Bill eliminated the option of using direct farm
ownership loans to refinance existing debt. As Congress begins to write
new farm policy legislation, we urge the Agriculture Committees to
remove the restriction on use of direct farm ownership loans to
refinance existing debt, where that makes the most sense.
AFGE supports the National Association of County Office Employees
(NASCOE) request to add $77 million above the President's
request to the Farm Service Agency's Salaries & Expenses,
provided the Congress increases the President's budget request
for Rural Development Salaries & Expenses by a similar
percentage.
However,
FSA should be required to allocate more staff resources to
the Farm Loan Programs.
The farm loan functions have been understaffed by about 1600
employees since they were transferred to FSA in 1995. The program
management standard for excellence in our direct farm loan programs is
that each responsible loan officer should never have a caseload of more
than 56 borrowers. Today, our farm loan officers in many states have an
average caseload of 150 to 200 borrowers. This makes it impossible to
adequately perform the supervised credit functions, which ensure the
success of the program. The Appropriations Subcommittees should
allocate at least 30 percent (cf. USDA County-Based Agency Study) of
FSA's Salaries & Expenses to support of the Farm Loan Program. The
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund could be used for this purpose by
changing the legal language and increasing the appropriation for S&E
from this account.
AFGE is also asking the Government Affairs/Reform
Committees to reject legislation the Department
intends to submit to convert County Office
employees to the Federal civil service--unless the
language is changed to meet our concerns.
We believe that all FSA employees should come under the Federal
Civil Service employment system, so that all FSA employees will have
the same rights, including the right to collective bargaining, the
right to seniority protections in RIF situations, whistle blower
protections and other Merit Systems rights and protections. Through the
Federal Performance Management system, the Secretary will have the
direct authority to hold all employees accountable to the program
performance goals of the Department, including Civil Rights goals.
The conversion of the County Office Committee employees to Federal
Civil Service status must be accomplished in a manner that is fair to
the civil service employees of the former Farmers Home Administration
(both FSA and Rural Development) who are represented by the American
Federation of Government Employees (AFL-CIO). The problem with past
(and current USDA) proposals is that they would allow CO employees to
assume responsibilities for aspects of the Farm Loan Program regardless
of the employee's experience, training, or qualifications to perform
that work. Proposals to ``deem'' County Executive Directors qualified
to supervise FLP activities, without proper training or resolution of
conflict of interest concerns, will be opposed by AFGE. So will
proposals which would allow former CO employees to use special civil
service seniority rights based on years of service in the COC system
administering commodity programs to bump current FSA or Rural
Development federal employees out of their jobs in a RIF.
Let us be clear: AFGE opposes any further staffing reductions in
FSA. We believe the 1996 ``Freedom to Farm'' bill has failed, and needs
to be replaced by a new comprehensive farm and food policy. At the same
time, we will continue to fight against any effort to bump any
employees we represent out of their jobs in order to save jobs for
former CO employees whose programs have been eliminated or cut back.
AFGE believes the No. 1 management improvement needed to achieve a
Common Computing Environment, or otherwise more effectively
deliver USDA programs to the people we serve, is to reduce the
waste of funds for poor quality work that results from current
USDA contracting out practices. Until this problem is
addressed, we cannot support other Administration proposals to
improve management of the Information Technology and
administrative support functions!
An increasing amount of work, which could be performed more
effectively by USDA employees, has been contracted out without even
performing a cost comparison, in the name of ``reducing government''.
As the Chairman and other Members of this Subcommittee have noted, the
too many front-line USDA employees have been cut! We can no longer
adequately deliver programs to rural America! And we're not really any
closer to a Common Computing Environment than we were with InfoShare in
1990! The Service Center Implementation and Modernization Initiatives
have been over-relying on private contractors. These contractors have
no business interest in accomplishing a Common Computing Environment
for USDA front-line employees--then they would be out of a job!
Before USDA takes any other steps to ``improve management of
Information Technology or administrative support,'' the 11,000-plus
service contracts should also be put on the table for review. We hope
to work with the Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee to place
language in the Agriculture Appropriations bill that will require USDA
to perform cost comparisons on all major service contracting decisions,
and to bring the work back in-house wherever that would be more cost
effective.
Appendix I documents these concerns relative to the information
technology support functions for the Rural Development, NRCS, and Farm
Service agencies.
Additional examples of problems with contracting out which have
been provided to our Union through extensive interviews and surveys of
Field Office employees include the following:
``It takes a month to receive an appraisal and it can mean a
difference between us funding a loan or running out of money.
Appraisals can be done quicker by the employees. . . .''
``FP year-end analysis, chattel checks, and 1951-S servicing help--
very poor quality in most cases--These functions should always be
performed by an in-house government employee. . . . We are supposed to
be a servicing agency. How can we contract out to analyze the farmer's
next year's production and expenses, and help the borrowers. If we are
going to be farmer friendly, we need to do our own work.''
``Loan making/loan servicing contractor--$20,000-$25,000 per year.
Appraisal contracting--approx. $22,700 per year. The administrative
cost of contracting was not included in above. Am sure this cost would
be staggering, considering the process we go through. I have shown the
District Director the savings in performing the work ourselves rather
than contracting out. Over 2 million dollars a year could be saved each
year in the state of Montana alone. A GS-7 Asst. Co. Supervisor could
be hired for each of the 24 county offices in Montana at an annual
salary of $23,000 plus benefits of approximately $5,000, and provide
each assistant with a $10,000/year training budget for less cost than
contracting. The end result would be better quality work performed in a
timely manner at less cost to the taxpayer. To me, this satisfies the
criteria desired by this administration. Better service at less cost!''
Appendix II contains the language that AFGE proposes be added to
the Agriculture Appropriations bill. It is based on language from H.R.
3766, which already has over 100 co-sponsors, including Ms. Kaptur and
other Members of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee in the
House. AFGE can only support the appropriation of the $75 million
requested by the USDA Chief Information Officer if such funding will
not reduce the funding available to any of our priorities, identified
above, and only if USDA works with labor, instead of working against
labor, to stop contracting out when Federal employees can do it better.
APPENDIX I--USDA OVER-RELIANCE ON COMMERCIAL SUPPORT CONTRACTS FOR
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
The real point about balancing the budget should be taxpayer
dollars, not Federal employee jobs. We need to ensure that
Administrative Convergence (in any form) does not just lead to
replacing Federal employees with more expensive contractors who can't
do as good a job. AFGE is very concerned about this, because in DOD and
other agencies, the Administration has consolidated administrative
functions--and then tried to contract them out. The following numbers
come from the Agencies' A-11 submissions to OMB, reporting on
``Obligations for Information Systems''.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial
Support Services Personnel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1993:
ASCS.......................... 39,029 27,657
FAS........................... 4,366 3,033
OICD.......................... 183 245
FCIC.......................... 8,572 3,627
FmHA/RDA...................... 40,627 36,181
REA........................... 618 1,506
SCS........................... 17,419 38,131
Fiscal year 1998:
FSA........................... 90,894 44,898
FAS........................... 7,252 .................
RMA........................... 8,597 4,206
RD............................ 26,148 15,048
NRCS.......................... 23,223 25,516
Percent Change (1993-1998):
FSA/FAS/RMA \1\............... +51 +30
RD............................ -36 -60
NRCS.......................... +25 -33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some amount of the Rural Development decrease, and the FSA increase,
from fiscal year 1993 to fiscal year 1998, consisted of the transfer
of Farm Credit functions from FmHA/RD to FSA.
During 1998, an Information Technology Functional Team, consisting
of labor and management from the IT organizations of Rural Development,
NRCS, and FSA, developed ``Information Technology Contracting
Recommendations''. This official agency document recommends that
Federal staffing for IT support be increased, through reductions in
more expensive contractor personnel, as the ``least cost solution''
when considering total cost to the government of contracting out. The
reason for this conclusion was simple: the cost of the average Federal
Information Technology staff year is $69,250 whereas the total cost per
contract staff year support of ``average complexity and skill'' is
$119,733. It costs $50,000 per FTE less, on average, to utilize Federal
employees, rather than contractors, to provide Information Technology
support to the USDA county-based agencies!
APPENDIX II--PROPOSED LANGUAGE ON CONTRACTING OUT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
2001 AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS BILL
Sec. ____. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act or any other Act shall be available to privatize,
outsource, contract or contract out, including the exercise of options,
extensions, and renewals of any contracts, except in accordance with
the following procedures:
(a) In General.--After the date of the enactment of this Act,
any decision by the Secretary or any Agency of the Department
of Agriculture to privatize, outsource, contract or contract
out, including the exercise of options, extensions, and
renewals of any contracting efforts, for the performance of a
function shall be based on the results of a public-private
competition process that--
(1) formally compares the costs of Federal employee
performance of the function with the costs of the
performance by a contractor;
(2) employs the most efficient organization process
described in OMB Circular A-76; and
(3) is conducted in consultation or through
bargaining with the exclusive representative of the
Federal employees performing the function, if
applicable. This subsection applies only to contracting
efforts undertaken on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(d) Determination of Costs.--The Secretary or any Agency of the
Department shall commence or continue the performance of a function by
Federal employees if, under a cost comparison performed pursuant to a
public-private competition process described in subsection (a), the
Secretary or the Agency determines that at least a 10-percent cost
savings would not be achieved by performance of the function by a
contractor.
(e) Inapplicability of Certain Limitations.--Notwithstanding any
limitation on the number of Federal employees established by law,
regulation, or policy, the Secretary or an Agency of the Department may
continue to employ, or may hire, such Federal employees as are
necessary to perform work acquired through public-private competition
required by this section.
(f) Waiver.--(1) The provisions of this section shall only apply to
service contracts above the $25,000 formal contract threshold. In no
case may a function be modified, reorganized, divided or in anyway
changed for the purpose of exempting from the requirements of section
(a) the change of all or any part of such function to performance by a
private contractor.
(2) Any component of the Department may submit to the Deputy
Secretary a request for a waiver of this section with regard to a
particular function. Such a waiver request shall
(A) identify the facilities, units, or activities affected;
(B) specify the reason a waiver is needed;
(C) identify the duration sought; and
(D) explain the justification for the waiver.
(3) The Deputy Secretary may grant a waiver with regard to a
particular function if the Deputy Secretary determines that a waiver--
(A) is necessary to obtain support services to combat natural
disasters, such as forest fires, insect infestations, plant and
animal diseases, which require immediate attention, exceed the
capacity of in-house resources, and will last for less than one
year;
(B) is critical to obtain particular expertise not available
within the Department, or unbiased judgements as in
environmental impact studies, and will last for less than one
year; or
(C) is required to avoid a violation of laws which encourage
the use of minority owned businesses.
(4) The Deputy Secretary may not grant a waiver under this section
until--
(A) the Agency has consulted with the employees in the
affected unit regarding the waiver;
(B) the waiver request has been concurred in by the exclusive
representative of the Federal employees in the affected unit,
where applicable; and
(C) the Deputy Secretary has published the request for the
waiver in the Federal Register.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN HONEY PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
My name is Richard Adee. I am President of the American Honey
Producers Association, Inc. and I am submitting this statement in its
behalf. The American Honey Producers Association, Inc. is a national
organization of commercial beekeepers with activities in most of the
States in this country.
First, the Association wishes to thank you for the support the
Subcommittee has provided in the past for agricultural research
activities in behalf of the beekeeping industry. It has enabled the
Agricultural Research Service to staff its bee laboratories at the
minimum level necessary to meet with critical needs of the industry. To
continue this research, the Association supports approval of the
President's budget proposal for an additional appropriation of $300,000
in fiscal year 2001 for bee research at the ARS facility at Weslaco,
Texas. The Association also recommends an increase of $300,000 in the
level of funding for the ARS honey bee breeding, genetics, and
physiology laboratory at Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Background.--Honey bees pollinate over 90 cultivated crops whose
estimated value exceeds $14.6 billion and produce an average of 200
million pounds of honey annually. Since 1984, the survival of the honey
bee has been threatened by continuing infestations of mites and pests
for which appropriate controls have not yet been developed and research
must provide the answers. Unfortunately, there is no simple solution to
these problems. The honey bee industry is too small to support the cost
of the needed research, particularly with the current depressed state
of the industry. As you know, there are no longer any federal subsidies
on honey. Further, there are no funds, facilities, or personnel
elsewhere available in the private sector for this purpose.
Accordingly, the beekeeping industry is dependent on research from
public sources for the scientific answers. The key to the survival of
the honey industry lies with the honey bee research program conducted
by the Agricultural Research Service.
Research at the ARS Weslaco, Texas, Laboratory.--Parasitic mites,
primarily the varroa mite, are causing a crisis for the U.S. beekeeping
and pollination industry. Tens of thousands of domestic honey bee
colonies are being lost annually to varroa mites. Wild bee colonies
have been decimated. The only chemical which has received a general
registration for varroa mite control, fluvalinate, is being rendered
ineffective by the development of resistant mite populations. The USDA
honey bee lab at Weslaco, Texas, has been working hard trying to find
alternative chemicals to control the varroa mite. It appears that they
have found a chemical, coumaphos, which has the potential of being
equally effective as fluvalinate. This is a real break through for the
bee industry, but as of today we have only been able to obtain a
section 18 emergency registration. Much work still remains to be done
before a section 3 general registration is granted by EPA.
A new pest, the small hive beetle, found in Florida has caused
severe bee colony losses. Apparently, it originated in South Africa.
Estimates put the losses in just one season at over 30,000 colonies.
There is evidence that the beetles are spreading to other areas in the
East coast. As the beetles spread, they will just devastate the bee
industry. In order to contain the beetle, several states have
quarantined bees from Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Georgia or are actively considering such quarantines. If the beetle
should be found in California, it will spread rapidly and be difficult
to control because of similarity of soil conditions with those in
Florida. It seems that coumaphos may help control this insect as well
as the varroa mite, but as previously stated it has not received a
section 3 registration and it is unclear when such a registration will
be granted by EPA.
The USDA-ARS honey bee research scientists at the Weslaco
laboratory have been working overtime to find chemicals, techniques,
pheromones, or other methods of controlling the beetle. Time is of the
essence, as a control must be found immediately as all the bee colonies
in the Western Hemisphere are at risk.
Additionally, the Weslaco lab is responsible for finding new and
improved methods for control of other parasitic mites, such as the
tracheal mite, as well as solving beekeeping problems that interfere
with honey production and effective crop pollination, and determining
the impact and spread of Africanized honey bees.
The additional appropriation recommended by the Administration
would help in finding a chemical solution to our most pressing
problems.
Research at the ARS Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Laboratory.--The
Association also recommends an increase of $300,000 in the
appropriation for the ARS laboratory at Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The
Baton Rouge lab is the only laboratory world-wide focusing on the
development of long-term, genetics-based solutions to the varroa mite.
Their research programs have taken them to the far corners of the world
looking for mite resistant bees. In eastern Russia, they found bees
that have co-existed for decades with the mites and survived. The bees
were brought to the United States and are in the process of being
evaluated to assure that the resistance holds up under a wide range of
environmental and beekeeping conditions. Attributes such as vigor,
pollination, and honey production are being tested. There is an
immediate need to propagate the resistant queen bees in large numbers
for wide scale distribution to beekeepers so that this evaluation can
be accomplished. The work is slow and tedious. It is also costly. The
requested appropriation will accelerate the research, development, and
transfer of queen bee stock resistant to varroa mites by providing for
the employment of another research scientist and supporting staff.
Summary.--In conclusion, we wish to thank you again for your
support of honey bee research in the past. We would appreciate your
continued support by approving the additional funding of $300,000 that
the Administration would add to the fiscal year 2001 appropriation for
the Weslaco, Texas, lab, by adding another $300,000 to the
appropriation for the Baton Rouge bee facility, and by otherwise
supporting the Administration's request for bee research. Only through
research can we achieve and maintain profitability in the U.S.
beekeeping industry and continue to provide stable and affordable
supplies of bee pollinated crops which make up fully one-third of the
U.S. diet.
I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION CONSORTIUM
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) and the 30 Tribal
Colleges that comprise the 1994 Land-Grant Institutions, we thank you
for this opportunity to share our funding requests for fiscal year
2001.
We respectfully recommend the following funding levels for fiscal
year 2001 for our 1994 programs. Specifically, we request: $5 million
for our extension grants program; $7.1 million for the Native American
endowment fund, and report language that will give the Tribal Colleges
the flexibility to use this funding to address the critical
infrastructure needs at the 1994 Institutions; $3 million for our
equity grants; $3 million for our 1994 research program; and $1.7
million for institution capacity building grants. These requested
funding levels are fully supported by the National Association of State
Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC) and are included in
their fiscal year 2001 budget recommendations.
This statement will cover two areas: First, it provides a brief
background on the Tribal Colleges and our long-awaited inclusion in
this nation's land-grant system; and second, it lays out the 1994
Institutions' ambitious plan through our authorized 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.
BACKGROUND ON TRIBAL COLLEGES
Today, almost 140 years after enactment of the first land-grant
legislation, Tribal Colleges, more than any other institutions, truly
exemplify the original intent of the land-grant legislation. The first
Morrill Act was enacted in 1862 specifically to bring education to the
people and to serve their fundamental needs. This is the definition and
mission of the Tribal Colleges. We truly are institutions by, of, and
for our people.
The dismal statistics concerning the American Indian experience in
education brought tribal leaders to the realization that only through
local, culturally-based education could many American Indians succeed
in higher education and help bring desperately needed economic
development to the reservations. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the
first Tribal Colleges were chartered by their respective tribal
governments, to be governed by boards comprised of local tribal people.
These first colleges were started, with little money and a lot of
determination, in abandoned and even condemned government buildings and
old trailers, often using three-legged desks, wood crates for shelves
and typewriters with missing keys. In 1972, six tribally-controlled
institutions came together to form the American Indian Higher Education
Consortium. Today, AIHEC is a cooperatively sponsored effort and
integral support network for 33 member institutions in the United
States and Canada, 30 of which are 1994 Land-Grant Institutions.
Located in 12 states, Tribal Colleges and Universities now serve
more than 25,000 students from over 250 federally recognized tribes.
Tribal Colleges offer primarily two-year degrees, with some colleges
offering four-year and graduate degrees. All of the Tribal Colleges,
with the exception of four institutions that are accreditation
candidates, are fully accredited by mainstream regional accreditation
associations.
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 Institutions are located on federal trust
territory; states have no obligation and in most cases, do not fund the
Tribal Colleges. In fact, most states do not even fund the institutions
for the non-Indian students who attend our colleges despite the fact
that non-Indian enrollment at the Tribal Colleges averages 20 percent.
1994 LAND-GRANT PROGRAMS--AMBITIOUS EFFORTS TO REACH ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
Current land-grant programs at the Tribal Colleges are modest, yet,
our 1994 authorizing legislation is vitally important to us because of
the nature of our land base. Of the 54.5 million acres that comprise
American Indian reservations, 75 percent are agricultural lands and 15
percent are forestry holdings.
Tragically, due to lack of expertise and training, millions of
acres lie fallow, under-used, or have been developed through methods
that render the resources non-renewable. The Educational Equity in
Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 is our hope for turning this situation
around. It is essential that American Indians learn more about new and
evolving technologies for managing our lands. We are committed to
becoming, as we were when your forefathers came to this land centuries
ago, productive contributors to this nation's--and the world's--
agricultural base.
Extension Program.--Recent years show impressive efforts to address
economic development through land use, as 1994 Land-Grants enter into
partnerships with 1862 Institutions through extension projects. Our
extension program represents 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. Some examples of the
innovative programs that are funded through competitively awarded
extension grants include:
--United Tribes Technical College and North Dakota State University
Extension Service are collaborating to provide diabetes
prevention education to Native Americans through the creation
of an Inter-Tribal Diabetes Education Center. Diabetes has
spread epidemically in Indian Country. Through nutrition,
health and wellness education programs, which are culturally
appropriate and community supported, participants will have a
greater understanding of how to control and even prevent this
disease. The first phase of this vital project is now underway
through a survey to determine the health habits and diet intake
of Tribal College students statewide. This nutrition study will
provide baseline data to share with tribal stakeholders and
will assist in developing relevant health and wellness
educational programs.
--The Native American Pastoral Textile Project at the Institute of
American Indian Arts in Santa Fe, New Mexico provides
educational outreach through workshops and seminars to utilize
traditional methods of weaving natural fibers into products
that can be widely marketed generating revenue that will help
families and their communities achieve economic self-
sufficiency.
Additional funding to support such efforts is needed because
extension services provided by the states on our reservations are
woefully inadequate, and the Tribal Colleges need to fill the gap. It
is important to note that this program is not duplicative of ongoing
extension activities, as it is specifically designed to complement and
build upon the Indian Reservation Extension Agent program.
In fiscal year 2000, the 1994 institutions were awarded $3,060,000
for extension grants. We request that Congress build on the $3.5
million proposed in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget, and raise
funding for this vital program to $5 million, the authorized level.
Native American Endowment Fund.--The endowment installments paid to
the 1994 Institutions, remains with the U.S. Treasury, only the
interest is distributed to our colleges. It is important to note that
these funds are not scored as current budget outlay or authority. The
fiscal year 1999 interest payment distributed among the thirty 1994
Land Grant Institutions totaled $980,913.
Just as other land-grant institutions historically received large
grants of land or endowments in lieu of land, this sum assists the 1994
Institutions in establishing and strengthening our academic programs in
such areas as curricula development, faculty preparation, and
instruction delivery. As earlier stated, Tribal Colleges often serve as
primary community centers. Although conditions at some have improved
substantially, many of the colleges still operate in trailers, cast-off
buildings, and facilities with crumbling foundations, substandard and
exposed wiring and leaking roofs. 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 Congress
to build this much needed endowment by increasing the endowment fund
payment to $7.1 million for fiscal year 2001, and further support this
program with report language giving the 1994 Institutions the
flexibility to use the interest income from this fund to address the
critical infrastructure issues so prevalent at the Tribal Colleges.
1994 Institutions' Educational Equity Grant Program.--Closely
linked with the endowment fund, this program has for the last two years
provided almost $52,000 per 1994 Institution to assist in academic
programs. Given that current authority for this program is $50,000 per
Institution, this level of funding reflects recognition by Congress
that the current authorization is simply insufficient. The fiscal year
2001 budgets of the USDA and the Administration also, acknowledge that
the 1994 Equity Grant program has outgrown its current authority by
requesting funds above the authorized level. We respectfully request
that the Subcommittee expand on this program and fund it at $3 million
to allow the colleges to build upon the courses and activities that the
initial funding launched. Through the appropriations made available
since fiscal year 1996, the Tribal Colleges have been able to begin to
support vital courses and planning activities specifically targeted to
meet the unique needs of our respective reservations. Some examples of
this include:
--Fort Peck Community College in Poplar, Montana has designed a
program to strengthen the college's instructional delivery
system by providing telecommunication courses and workshops
from Montana State University (MSU) Bozeman, MSU Northern and
Rocky Mountain College, in business and Agribusiness. The
program has also allowed Fort Peck to hire an administrative
assistant for community outreach services, and offer programs
that promote home economics through Native customs, values and
traditions.
--Northwest Indian College (NWIC) has used its Equity Grant funds to
develop and implement a Bachelor of Technology degree program
in Natural Resources Management, with options in (1) Fisheries
and Shellfish Management (to include Aquaculture and
Processing); (2) Water Quality Management; (3) Environmental
Technology; and (4) Forest and Land Use Management. NWIC has
chosen to combine its share of the interest income from the
Land-Grant Institutions Endowment Fund with the Equity fund to
achieve the goals of this project.
Other Tribal Colleges have started courses and programs in natural
resource management; environmental sciences; horticulture; forestry; as
well as in dietetic programs and buffalo production and management,
which are helping to address the chronic problem of diabetes among
American Indian people.
1994 Research Program.--We are requesting increased funding for our
research program, which was authorized in the Agriculture Research,
Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, at ``such sums as
necessary''. The program was initially funded in fiscal year 2000 at
$500,000. We recognize the budget constraints that Congress is working
under yet, with 30 institutions competing for these research dollars,
we feel the President's suggested level of $1 million is simply not
adequate. Therefore, we respectfully request an appropriation of $3
million with the intention of building this funding over time to a
level adequate to address the pressing agricultural and nutritional
research needs of the communities we serve.
This research program is vital to ensuring that Tribal Colleges
finally become full partners in this nation's land-grant system. Many
of our institutions are currently conducting applied agriculture-based
research projects, yet they struggle to find the resources to conduct
this research and meet their communities' needs. Some of the projects
in progress 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 urge the subcommittee to fund this program at $3 million
allow our institutions to develop and strengthen their research
potential.
1.7 million Institutional Capacity Building Grant Program.--This
competitive grant program, which requires a non-federal match, would
provide the 1994 Institutions with the investment necessary to allow us
to strengthen and more fully develop our educational infrastructure.
Facilities maintenance and improvement are urgently needed at Tribal
Colleges, many of which are still operating in donated, abandoned and
even condemned buildings. As discussed earlier, many of our colleges
are in serious disrepair with leaking roofs, asbestos insulation,
exposed wiring, and crumbling foundations, being the norm rather than
the exception. The results of a recent needs assessment suggest that a
minimum of $120 million is needed just to address the critical safety
issues at the nation's Tribal Colleges. These improvements are needed
to provide American Indian students with the education necessary to
fully compete in the modern agricultural world.
CONCLUSION
The 1994 Institutions have proven to be efficient and effective
tools for bringing education to American Indians and bringing
opportunity and hope for self-sufficiency to some of this nation's
poorest regions. The modest federal investment in the Tribal Colleges
has already paid great dividends in terms of employment, education, and
economic development, and continuation of this investment makes sound
moral and fiscal sense. American Indian reservation communities are
second to none in their need for land-grant programs and no
institutions better exemplify the original intent of land-grant concept
than the 1994 Institutions.
We appreciate your long-standing support of the Tribal Colleges and
are 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.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMERICAN RIVERS
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, and Related Agencies, on behalf of more than 450
conservation and recreation organizations, community groups, religious
affiliations, companies, and other groups across the country, American
Rivers would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify before
you today.
We urge you to support increased funding for Natural Resources
Conservation Service soil and water conservation programs, including
$400 million for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
and $25 million for the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP).
environmental quality incentives program
We urge you to appropriate $400 million for EQIP, a voluntary
program designed to help farmers and ranchers facing threats to soil,
water, and other natural resources develop successful resource
conservation practices. The program provides financial, technical, and
educational assistance to help landowners implement conservation plans
that address issues such as nutrient management, manure management,
integrated pest management, irrigation and water management, and
wildlife habitat management. Participants join in five- to ten-year
contracts that provide financial incentives and cost sharing to
implement these conservation practices.
Appropriating $400 million for EQIP will permit the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to meet demand for assistance,
increase conservation opportunities for low-income farmers, and more
effectively target watersheds and subwatersheds that are significant
contributors of nutrients.
WILDLIFE HABITAT INCENTIVES PROGRAM
We urge you to appropriate $25 million for WHIP, which provides
financial incentives to landowners to voluntarily develop and implement
practices that will protect and preserve important wildlife habitat. By
helping improve wildlife and fish habitat, WHIP can help improve the
quality of life for participants and have a positive impact on local
economies. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, wildlife
watchers spent $29.2 billion on trips, equipment, and other related
expenditures in 1996 alone.
WHIP is a valuable tool for restoring aquatic habitat, adjacent
streambanks, and uplands, benefiting many species of wildlife and fish.
In Maine, WHIP has restored habitat for Atlantic salmon and brook trout
and critical habitat for other important fish and wildlife species. In
Illinois, seventy-five counties secured a total of 333 WHIP contracts
through fiscal year 1999, covering 7448 acres.
We urge you to increase funds for NRCS programs that conserve our
soil and water resources, including $400 million for the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program and $25 million for the Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program.
Thank you for your consideration of our requests. We strongly
believe that these funding levels will be excellent investments in the
long-term health of our nation's watersheds, the urban and rural
communities they serve and the economies they sustain.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SEED TRADE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate this
opportunity to provide you with our views on the fiscal year 2000
agricultural appropriations bill. The American Seed Trade Association
(ASTA) strongly urges you to provide a $20 million increase for the
USDA National Plant Germplasm System for fiscal year 2001.
The ASTA, founded in 1883, is one of the oldest trade associations
in the United States. With over 900 members, the ASTA is the premiere
advocate for the seed industry and related interests. Our diverse
membership consists of the leading companies that are developing,
providing, supporting, and promoting new varieties that hold tremendous
promise and opportunity for farmers and consumers everywhere.
Our request for a $20 million increase for the NPGS is the number
one appropriations issue and the number one legislative issue for ASTA.
This increase will allow seed companies to meet the diverse challenges
facing our customers. Support for significant increases to the NPGS
goes well beyond industry; we, also, have the support of our customers
and the scientific community since they recognize that this will pay
huge dividends. In addition to ASTA, the following organizations
support a $20 million increase for the NPGS:
--American Farm Bureau Federation
--American Society of Agronomy
--American Soybean Association
--Association of Seed Certifying Agencies
--Crop Science Society of America
--National Association of Wheat Growers
--National Barley Growers Association
--National Corn Growers Association
--Society of American Florists.
This past year, the Department of Agriculture, also, recognized the
need for a significant increase for the NPGS when it requested an
increase of $19.4 million for the NPGS in its fiscal year 2001 budget
submission to the OMB. Unfortunately, the OMB reduced the increase to
the $5.6 million level included in the Administration's budget request.
While we appreciate the increase, it is simply not sufficient to
maintain the NPGS.
The NPGS germplasm collections underpin crop-breeding efforts
throughout the U.S. Preservation of and filling gaps in the base
collections is a unique Federal responsibility. The NPGS:
--acquires germplasm;
--develops and documents information on the germplasm;
--preserves and distributes germplasm; and
--maintains quarantine facilities for testing imported germplasm for
pests and pathogens before introduction in the U.S.
Many of the challenges confronting the U.S. can be met through the
application of plant-based technologies. Continued use of and access to
a broad diversity of germplasm is necessary, if we are to develop
varieties to meet new and changing circumstances and if we are to
sustain agricultural productivity. The improvement of plants is based
on the utilization of genetic diversity. Unless we have a wide
diversity of genetic resources, there will be nothing available,
eventually, to improve plants or to prevent plants from becoming
genetically susceptible to plant pathogens.
With sufficient genetic resources, we will have an abundant, safe,
nutritious, and affordable supply of food and fiber that is produced in
an environmentally friendly manner and that ensures a reasonable return
for our farmers and livestock producers. In addition to food and fiber,
American agriculture can provide continually renewable resources for a
wide range of consumer products if diverse genetic resources are
available and accessible to U.S. scientists and plant breeders.
Narrow genetic bases can result in widespread crop losses. For
example, in 1970, Southern corn leaf blight cost farmers 15 percent of
the corn crop; in the 1950s and early 1960s, about 70 percent of the
wheat crop in the Pacific Northwest was wiped out by stripe rust; and
the Irish potato famine of the 1840s was the result of the reliance on
only a single variety of the potato. Breeders must have open access to
extensive, well-maintained, and well-documented genetic resources.
Preserving the genetic diversity of plants is essential to the
future of agriculture as the genes to add new traits, such as tolerance
to diseases and resistance to insects, are often present in wild
relatives of the major crops. Wild ancestors and relatives of
cultivated plants give us the sustained ability to develop new
varieties. Most of the U.S. crops raised and used for food, fiber,
ornamentals, and industrial feedstocks originated from outside of the
U.S. Consequently, the plant breeding community is highly dependent
upon germplasm from other countries, some of which is endangered. Once
lost, the germplasm cannot be fully reconstructed.
To ensure that these genetic resources are accessible and that they
remain available, the NPGS must obtain a significant increase in
funding. In 1991, the NPGS reported that an annual budget of $40
million would be required to remedy shortfalls in secure storage,
backup, evaluation, and development of core germplasm collections.
Funding for the NPGS has not come close to approaching the $40 million
considered as necessary in 1991. We recognize the tight budget
constraints under which the Subcommittee must operate; however, the
following list outlines the precarious situation of the NPGS:
--Funding for the NPGS has declined by more than 14 percent, in
constant dollars, since 1992, jeopardizing vital germplasm;
--Lack of funding has resulted in decreased supplies of germplasm
that limits distribution and impedes the progress of research
and breeding programs;
--93 percent of all clonally-propagated samples and 19 percent of all
seed samples are not duplicated and are at high risk of
catastrophic loss, which could result in lost opportunities for
biodiversity and, perhaps, a wonder drug;
--No backup has been made for citrus and nearly all tropical fruit
crops in the NPGS collections, due to lack of funds to develop
effective storage methods;
--Long-term backup methods do not exist for many clonal crops and
will not be developed without a significant infusion of funds;
--Without a significant infusion of funds, many of the clonally-
propagated crops in the collection will remain at risk of
catastrophic loss;
--NPGS cannot assume that duplicates of ``lost'' germplasm can be
obtained elsewhere;
--Internationally, destruction of natural habitats, limited gene bank
capacity, inadequate management, and lack of consistent funding
has left much of the world's germplasm at high risk of loss;
--Acquisition of endangered germplasm will slow or stop completely
without an increase in funding;
--Due to funding constraints, the Plant Germplasm Quarantine Office
has found it necessary to establish quotas for importing
germplasm thereby restricting the amount of materials available
to U.S. scientists and plant breeders;
--Funding is insufficient for the Quarantine Office to take full
advantage of molecular diagnostic techniques;
--99.9 percent of the germplasm accessions at Griffin, GA, and 68
percent of the accessions at Pullman, WA, have not been tested
for viability within the past 10 years due to lack of funding;
--At least 30 percent of all NPGS accessions need to be regenerated
during the next couple of years and with current funding it
will take at least 9 years;
--18 percent of NPGS accessions are unavailable for distribution
primarily due to lack of funding; and
--Without an increase in funding, many NPGS sites will be unable to
pay for utilities, general operations, and facility repairs.
To fulfill its mission to provide access to diverse genetic
resources, the NPGS must have a balanced program that includes (1)
acquisition of germplasm to fill gaps in the collections and to
preserve endangered germplasm; (2) maintenance and preservation of
germplasm with secure backups to prevent loss; (3) adequate
documentation and characterization of the germplasm; (4) sufficient
supplies of viable seeds to allow for distribution; and (5) quarantine
facilities that make germplasm available in a timely manner. The steady
decline in available funding has had an extremely negative impact on
the ability of the NPGS to have a balanced program.
The above problems are just a few of the many that are plaguing the
NPGS due to the lack of adequate funding. However, they are
jeopardizing the security of the U.S. food and fiber system. As some
plant breeders have stated, genetic diversity is the engine that drives
plant breeding. Without new sources of genetic variation, plant
breeders cannot make improvements. Without improvements, we will be
unable to ensure the continued economic viability and security of our
food and fiber system.
The NPGS is a fundamental, strategic resource that we cannot afford
to jeopardize. Without a significant infusion of funds, the NPGS will
not be able to ensure the preservation of important germplasm. Our very
existence and posterity hinges on our ability to provide breeders with
the blueprints and genetic codes necessary to ensure new, plentiful
foods, fibers, consumer products, and drugs. If the NPGS is not funded
at a sufficient level, we will have lost opportunities for biodiversity
and, perhaps, lost the germplasm for a possible wonder drug or the cure
for some dreaded disease. The consequences of not funding the NPGS
adequately are severe. The NPGS is a good investment for taxpayers and
for the American consumer.
We strongly, urge you to provide an increase of $20 million for the
NPGS for fiscal year 2001. We recognize that this will be difficult and
that there are many competing priorities for limited resources;
however, we cannot afford to be complacent about the fundamental
resources that underpin our entire future.
Thank you for the opportunity to present ASTA's views on the
importance of the National Plant Germplasm System. We look forward to
working with you to ensure that the NPGS is able to provide the
germplasm necessary for U.S. agriculture to meet the demands and
challenges of the 21st Century.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASTA CORN AND SORGHUM BASIC RESEARCH
COMMITTEE
SUMMARY
We are requesting $500,000 be appropriated annually for enhancing
corn germplasm.
--Corn is a key resource providing food, industrial uses, livestock
feed, and export.
--Corn production in the U.S. is based on less than 5 percent of corn
germplasm available in the world. Broadening the germplasm base
would provide genes to improve yields and protect against new
disease, insect and environmental stresses. Exotic germplasm
would also be a source for changes in grain quality being
demanded by export markets, industrial processors, and other
end users.
--Most exotic germplasm is unadapted to growing conditions in the
U.S. This proposal is a joint USDA/ARS, university, and
industry effort to adapt this material, so that it can be used
by commercial breeders in the development of new hybrids to
meet the demands of the American consumer and our foreign
markets.
--We greatly appreciate the $500,000 previously appropriated for this
research, beginning with the 1995 Federal budget. This funding
is supporting the two main USDA/ARS locations involved in this
research (Iowa and North Carolina), as well as USDA/ARS and
university locations in Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri,
Ohio, New York, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin. Industry is
providing $450,000 in-kind support annually for this effort.
--The additional appropriation of $500,000 annually would enable the
Iowa and North Carolina locations to purchase equipment and add
staff necessary for carrying out this research. It would also
provide funding for the increased germplasm evaluation and
breeding necessary to test and enhance the exotic materials
available.
BACKGROUND
Corn is the major crop on the cultivated land of the U.S.A. where
approximately 75 million acres are planted each year. U.S. corn
production, accounting for about half of the world's annual production,
adds over $16 billion of value to the American economy as a raw
material. About 20 percent ($3.2 billion) of this production is
exported each year, thereby providing a positive contribution to the
nation's trade balance. Approximately 17 percent of the yearly corn
crop is industrially refined. A portion of the refined products is
exported resulting in an additional $1.4 billion in export. Through
feeding livestock, the rest of the crop is processed into meat and
dairy products that affect everyone in our society. Corn is a key
resource within our country.
CONCERNS
All of this production is based on using less than 5 percent of the
corn germplasm available in the world. Less than 1 percent of our
commercial corn is of exotic (foreign) origin, and tropical exotic
germplasm is only a fraction of that. This situation exists because
private sector corn breeders have generally concentrated on genetically
narrow based, or elite by elite, sources for their breeding efforts,
since their use results in getting hybrids to the marketplace faster.
Traditionally, corn has been treated as a commodity. In recent
years corn grain users and processors have become more interested in
the quality characteristics of the grain itself and how this affects
their business. Since much of the exotic germplasm has undergone
selection for many indigenous uses (foods, beverages, etc.) by various
cultures, it seems likely that new grain quality characteristics will
be found in exotic germplasm rather than the narrow-based germplasm now
used. A small increase in value to the grain, such as 10 cents per
bushel, would increase its annual value by $800 million for an eight
billion bushel harvest.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Salhuana, Pollak, Tiffany 1994. Public/Private Collaboration
Proposed to Strengthen Quality and Production of U.S. Corn through
Maize Germplasm Enhancement, Diversity Vol. 9, no. 4, 1993/Vol. 10, no.
1, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breeders must still be concerned with breeding for higher yields so
that U.S. corn farmers can remain competitive. Tapping into the broader
germplasm pool could provide new sources of genes for higher yield and
other performance traits, such as disease and insect tolerance or
improved stalk and root strength.
A further concern with a narrow genetic base is the potential for
widespread disease or insect damage due to new diseases or insect
species spreading into U.S. corn growing areas. It is more likely that
resistance to these dangers would be found in genetically diverse
exotic germplasm sources than in our breeding material. One major
benefit would be reduced pesticide use. In addition to protection
against diseases and insects, these exotic materials provide insurance
for unforeseen climatic or environmental problems.
LAMP PROJECT
What would be the source of this exotic germplasm? Over the years,
collections of corn have been made from farmers' fields and other
sources all over the world, and are stored in various germplasm banks.
In 1987, the Latin American Maize Project (LAMP) was initiated to
evaluate these corn collections (accessions). It was a cooperative
effort among 12 countries to identify accessions that might provide
valuable source material for further improvement in hybrid and open-
pollinated cultivars in the U.S.A. and other areas. Pioneer Hi-Bred
International gave USDA/ARS $1.5 million to fund the LAMP research.
Nearly 12,000 maize (corn) germplasm accessions were evaluated. In
successive stages, the project identified the top 268 accessions. The
environmental areas of adaptation for these 268 ``elite'' populations
range from temperate to tropical, and are prime candidates for
enhancing the U.S.A. corn germplasm base.
GERMPLASM ENHANCEMENT
Most of this germplasm is unadapted to growing conditions in the
U.S. and requires genetic enhancement to make it adapted, or able to
grow and mature in our environmental conditions. Enhancement basically
means that these exotic materials will be bred with U.S. adapted
materials and breeders will select progeny that carry the desired
exotic traits and are also adapted to U.S. growing conditions. This
will require a concerted long-term breeding approach by corn breeders
at numerous locations (environments) throughout the U.S. Only after
this process of enhancement will these exotic materials be ready to
enter commercial corn breeding channels and be effectively utilized by
a broad cross-section of the industry in the development of new hybrids
for farmers and corn users.
The total process of enhancement is too large and long-term for
public institutions and/or seed companies to accomplish individually.
An ambitious task of this nature can only be completed through a
coordinated and cooperative effort between the USDA/ARS, land-grant
universities, and industry.
The Corn and Sorghum Basic Research Committee of the American Seed
Trade Association has been concerned that enhancement of this exotic
germplasm would proceed. The Committee consists of representatives from
about 30 companies actively involved in the corn and sorghum seed
industry, and at the committee's request, Dr. Linda Pollak, Research
Geneticist, USDA/ARS, et al, developed a proposal for enhancing exotic
germplasm starting with materials which will include the elite LAMP
accessions as noted above. This proposal has developed into the U.S.
GEM (Germplasm Enhancement of Maize) Project.
U.S. GEM PROJECT OUTLINE
Since this project serves a national need, the primary effort and
direction has come from the USDA/ARS. Two permanent USDA/ARS locations
are being used as primary sites for enhancement breeding and
coordination. One is in Ames, Iowa, where the USDA/ARS currently
conducts corn evaluation and enhancement efforts. Dr. Linda Pollak,
Research Geneticist, is located there. Dr. Pollak was the Principal
Investigator of the U.S.A. for LAMP, and is the lead scientist for this
project.
The other permanent site is the USDA/ARS location in North
Carolina. This site has responsibility for initial evaluation and
conversion of the tropical materials. Tropical corn populations
normally will not reach maturity in the Corn Belt, but will produce
seed in North Carolina. After initial enhancement of the tropical
materials in the South, they will be sent to Ames for further
enhancement and testing in Corn Belt conditions. Dr. Marty Carson is in
charge of this program.
A number of corn researchers at various land-grant universities and
other ARS locations are also taking part in the enhancement and
evaluation of this exotic germplasm. This cooperative effort is very
important and serves not only as a source of improved germplasm but
also provides excellent training for future plant scientists.
Industry is also involved. Due to the success of the GEM program,
an initial group of 19 companies has increased to a total of 27
companies that have pledged research nursery and yield trial plots to
be used in this breeding effort. This in-kind support is valued at
$450,000 per year.
An important component of the project is an annual meeting of all
cooperators to evaluate progress and plan strategies. An information
network has been established to keep everyone up-to-date. A U.S. GEM
Technical Steering Group consisting of members from USDA/ARS,
University, and Industry has been formed for guidance and
administration of this cooperative effort.
This germplasm enhancement project is public and is open to all
public sector institutions as well as private seed companies.
Information will be freely available and publicly developed materials
will remain in the public domain, accessible to all.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN 1996-1999
Following is a description of accomplishments and research
conducted at various locations using 1996-1999 funding.
Ames, Iowa.--Priorities for the corn enhancement work at this
location are overall project coordination, data analysis and
management, management and release of enhanced germplasm, analysis of
materials for value-added traits, and as one of the many breeding
sites. To date, 186 hybrids from crosses with GEM breeding lines have
beaten the average of commercial check hybrids in trials analyzed in
Ames.
The laboratory is continuing to evaluate oil, starch, and protein
in the exotic accessions and in the breeding populations made up of
exotic materials crossed to proprietary corn belt inbreds. In results
from 1996, a line from one breeding cross measured total protein of 16
percent (corn belt germplasm has 10 percent) and total oil level of 6
percent (corn belt is 4 percent). It is extremely unique to find
increased levels for both of these traits in the same line, and it is
potentially very useful for food and feed applications. In 1997, lines
were identified with unique starch characteristics, which may be
beneficial for human food products. In 1998, three lines were
identified with high percent retrogradation, which may have
applications as a new source of dietary fiber or as a dry lubricant.
Other lines were found to exhibit certain potentially useful traits,
such as low protein (5.1 percent), high protein (15.4 percent) and high
starch content (73.6 percent). In 1999 five lines were found with
improved starch quality (three for improved gelatinization and two for
Peak Height Index) and several lines were identified with enhanced
fatty acid content.
GEM's World Wide Web site opened on July 15, 1996. From this site
cooperators can obtain the latest data from yield tests, disease and
insect screening, and value-added trait research, as well as news and
upcoming events.
Raleigh, North Carolina.--The focus of this location is twofold.
One priority is to develop enhanced material adapted to the Southern
U.S. corn growing conditions. The second is to be a stepping stone for
adapting tropical material to Midwest conditions.
Breeding populations were tested for resistance to various leaf
diseases and stalk rots. Selections were made for improved material
with resistance to these diseases as well as for improved yield,
standability, and adaptation to southern U.S. conditions. For example,
in 1997 significant resistance to Fusarium ear rot was found in four
GEM breeding populations. Resistance to Aspergillus ear rot was also
found in two of these same four populations. Hybrids of about 55
advanced breeding lines developed from tropical by elite breeding
populations yielded equal to or outyielded the mean of commercial check
hybrids over two years. These lines are now candidates for release.
Other public cooperators conducted evaluations and are finding many
positive results in 1999 as follows: Grain quality in Delaware and
Ohio. Yield data accumulation in Georgia, North Carolina, Maryland,
Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Texas and Delaware. Starch quality and
disease resistance in Illinois. Fusarium ear rot resistance in Iowa.
Wet milling properties, starch functionality, and other value added
grain traits in Iowa. Aflatoxin resistance, corn earworm tolerance and
grain quality in Texas. Resistance to corn rootworm in Missouri.
Resistance to anthracnose stalk rot in New York. Breeding in Tennessee.
Evaluation of silage quality in Wisconsin.
Demonstration nurseries were planted at Iowa and North Carolina for
viewing by cooperators. Fall field days were held at Iowa and North
Carolina.
In 1999, private cooperators continued the breeding and adaptation
of about 15 accessions following the protocol developed by the GEM
Technical Steering Group. Companies increased their nursery and yield
trial in-kind support by approximately 25 percent in 1996. In 1999, six
additional private cooperators joined GEM and are providing in-kind
support.
RESEARCH IN 2000
Research will continue at the various USDA/ARS, university, and
company locations similar to 1999.
EFFECTS OF INCREASED FUNDING BEGINNING IN 2001
Appropriation of the additional $500,000 annually would provide
funds to increase research in the following ways:
Ames, Iowa.--The increase in the integrated field and laboratory
experiments and breeding projects requires the addition of a field
technician (GS-7). Continuation of the postdoctoral position for value
added trait research (after a one year hiatus) would provide for the
study of food technology aspects of the unique traits being discovered.
A graduate research assistant would study the inheritance of these
value added traits, developing invaluable information for the breeding
effort. A database management system has been purchased, which needs
additional programming to meet GEM needs. By nearly tripling the amount
for public cooperators, it would greatly enhance the data gathering and
adaptation breeding of these materials in the various States where
these cooperators are located.
Raleigh, North Carolina.--This location has a number of equipment
needs, such as a seed storage unit, because current facilities are
filled to capacity and a minivan for transportation. A technician would
be added to handle the expanded field work. Current resources restrict
testing and development work to relatively few breeding populations.
With the increased funding, the number of breeding crosses could be
increased, greatly speeding up the introduction of adapted GEM material
into private and public breeding programs. Additional funding would
provide for yield trial testing at more locations and more extensive
disease and insect resistance screening, greatly increasing the
precision in selecting materials that are high yielding and have high
levels of pest resistance.
Other Public Cooperators.--The increase in funding for public
cooperators (to $266,250 per year in the third fiscal year) would allow
for full evaluation and development of new breeding materials improved
for productivity as well as disease and insect resistance and value-
added traits. Most public cooperators are willing to participate, but
cannot unless they have at least partial funding. There are
approximately 30 public cooperators now in many States, and as the
project develops we are likely to have more.
CONCLUSION
Corn hybrids in the U.S. have a very narrow genetic base, utilizing
only a small percentage of all available corn germplasm. This greatly
increases vulnerability to unforeseen pest problems, and may lead to an
eventual yield cap. Exotic corn germplasm could provide genes for
resistance to pest problems and for increased yields. These exotic
materials may also contain quality traits to meet new market demands.
This will help ensure the U.S. maintains its world leadership in
providing the best raw materials to meet the demand for the production
of meat, eggs, milk, and many other food and industrial uses.
The LAMP project identified the top 268 corn accessions from among
12,000 populations evaluated. The present proposal represents a joint
USDA/ARS, land-grant university, and industry effort to enhance these
and other exotic accessions so that they can enter commercial corn
breeding programs. The result of this cooperation will be an increase
in the productivity, quality, and marketability of hybrid corn in the
U.S. and for export, benefiting the farmer, the feed and processing
industries, and the consumer.
Therefore, the ASTA Corn and Sorghum Basic Research Committee
hereby requests the 106th Congress of the United States to add funding
of $500,000 (in addition to the $500,000 appropriated initially in
1995, for a total of $1,000,000) annually for this corn germplasm
enhancement project beginning with the 2001 Federal budget.
BUDGET SUMMARY
This is a summary of the operational and capital budgets for 2000,
2001, and 2002. The budget is divided into the Corn Belt Location and
corresponds to Ames, Iowa (USDA-ARS) and the cooperators in the Corn
Belt area. The Southern Location corresponds with Raleigh, North
Carolina (USDA-ARS) and the cooperators in the States in the South. For
a complete copy of the budget, please contact Dr. David Harper,
Holden's Foundation Seeds LLC, Box 839, Williamsburg, IA 52361 or 319-
668-1100.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Items 2000 2001 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn Belt Location:
Board Reductions............. $20,200 $20,900 $21,500
Personnel.................... 142,100 248,700 271,270
Office/Field................. 52,800 68,700 70,980
Capital Equipment............ 24,900 80,450 55,000
Specific Agreements for 60,000 181,250 181,250
Public Cooperators \1\......
--------------------------------------
Total for Corn Belt 300,000 600,000 600,000
Location..................
======================================
Southern Location:
Personnel.................... 68,600 113,000 115,400
Indirect Costs............... 16,213 13,363 13,363
Office/Field................. 30,187 43,637 45,237
Capital Equipment............ 5,000 65,000 41,000
Specific Agreements for 30,000 65,000 85,000
Public Cooperators \1\......
--------------------------------------
Total for Southern Location 150,000 300,000 300,000
======================================
Summary:
Corn Belt Location........... 300,000 600,000 600,000
Southern Location............ 150,000 300,000 300,000
USDA/ARS Overhead............ 50,000 100,000 100,000
--------------------------------------
Grand Total................ 500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Specific Agreements for Public Cooperators: Agreements for public
cooperation can be made with universities and ARS scientists in many
locations which could include the following States: Delaware, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Missouri, New
York, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska,
North Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas and Tennessee.
Research at these locations would include selection for disease and
insect resistance, evaluation for value added traits, and yield
trials.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR NUTRITIONAL SCIENCES
The American Society for Nutritional Sciences (ASNS) is the
principal professional organization of nutrition research scientists in
the United States representing 3,000 members whose purpose is to
develop and extend the knowledge and application of nutrition science.
ASNS members include scientists involved in human as well as animal
nutrition research. Our members hold positions in virtually every land
grant and private institution engaged in nutrition-related research in
the United States as well as industrial enterprises conducting
nutrition and food related research.
ASNS wants to express gratitude for the work that this committee
did last year, on both sides of the aisle, to help maintain
competitively awarded agricultural research in the National Research
Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRICGP) against many other
worthy competing programs. However, significant growth in fiscal year
2001 for the NRICGP is needed to help set the course for increased
emphasis in the critically emerging areas such as genomics and
genetics. While genomics is being studied under NIH and NSF funded
grants, they have not addressed the areas of the genetic influence on
nutrient requirements of individuals, nutrient gene interactions, and
nutrient metabolism on the genetic basis of diseases in their
intramural grants programs. These areas easily fit into the purview the
of USDA's NRI mission. ASNS supports these and other key elements that
will enhance cross-cutting areas of nutrition research having broad
health outcomes.
The President's Budget for fiscal year 2001 calls for a net
increase of $31 million above fiscal year 2000 funding for the NRI. We
strongly endorse this substantially needed investment, plus an
additional $73 million that would provide the NRICGP with $203 million
in fiscal year 2001.
We know there would be concerns from this Committee and the
Congress about how the competitive grants program might absorb such a
substantial increase and effectively manage any new competitive
initiatives. At this time we offer some suggestions as to how USDA's
CSREES may incorporate such an increase so that the funds are
effectively managed for the best possible health research outcomes.
ASNS encourages Congress to urge department officials to consider
administering all ongoing and new initiatives through a centralized
office. This allows new grant administrators to take advantage of the
investment and experience of an established program. Our Society
stresses that the NRICGP use the model of other federal agencies that
have more than one review cycle per year. Two or three cycles per year
would allow for timely resubmission and encourage institutions to
provide bridging funds for quality programs. However, despite the
potential for further advancement, the USDA research budget has
actually decreased in constant dollars by nine percent in the last five
years. Currently only 25 percent of qualified grants receive funding.
Consequently, inadequate funding limits the productivity of researchers
that the NRICGP is able to fund and deters researchers from spending
valuable time writing additional grant proposals. Furthermore, NRICGP
awards are small, averaging $133,210 in fiscal year 1999, and short,
averaging 2.3 years for a total average support of about $60,000 each
year. Though, according to a the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology (FASEB) Federal Funding Consensus Report for
fiscal year 2001, it is important to note that the number of
applications received in fiscal year 1999 increased by 157 over fiscal
year 1998 following an increased appropriation to the program's
budget.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Federal Funding for Biomedical and Related Life Sciences
Research Fiscal Year 2001, Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology, 2000, p.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent report from the National Association State Universities
and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC) stated that research and development
funding for space exploration, the environment, basic science research,
and health research has increased in constant dollars from 23 to 58
percent over the last ten years. But during this same time period, the
funding for agricultural research and extension programs, the lifeblood
of our food supply system, has shrunk by eight percent in constant
dollars. Base funds have eroded by 16 percent. These funds support the
scientists and extension educators who can respond quickly and
effectively to unexpected problems that arise for producers and
consumers. The benefit is a food system that enables the consumer
dollar and the welfare family's food stamps to purchase inexpensive,
safe, and nutritious food. A food system that creates jobs, competes
worldwide, and conserves its natural resources base.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Investments that Make a Difference, National Association of
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, Fiscal Year 2000 Budget
Proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH FUNDING MECHANISMS AND ISSUES:
Competitive Grants
A competitive system for allocating Government research funds is
the most effective and efficient mechanism for focusing efforts on
cutting edge research aimed at improving the health of the American
people. Competitive grants provide the most effective, efficient and
economic return to the public. ASNS strongly supports the competitive
grants process as reflected in the National Research Initiative and
believes that an open, merit and peer review process, applied as
extensively as possible throughout the research system, is the best way
to distribute research funds among qualified scientists.
Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS)
IFAFS calls for priority mission areas to be addressed: food
genome; food safety; food technology and human nutrition; new and
alternative uses and production of agricultural commodities and
products; agricultural biotechnology; and natural resource management.
The Initiative also includes provisions that allow merit/peer review
and lets those who benefit from agricultural research provide input
about the priority setting process. ASNS supports this Initiative and
urges members of this sub-committee make it a funding priority in
fiscal year 2001.
National Needs Fellowship Grants Program
Another important area where funding has remained stagnant is the
National Needs Fellowship of the Graduate Fellowship Program at the
Higher Education Office of the USDA. This program is fills an important
need to help train the next generation of agricultural researchers.
Despite its importance, funding for the program has seen a dramatic
decline in recent years after peaking in 1996 at $5 million. ASNS
endorses $5 million for the National Needs Program so that it may be
restored to its previous funding levels. We also support the review and
subsequent reorganization of USDA-sponsored graduate training.
Special Grants
ASNS strongly believes that the best research results come from
research that is peer reviewed. That is why researchers funded by
federal agencies, such as the NIH and the NSF, that award grants on
merit have made such great progress. There is a potential danger that
special grants and earmarked research funds from USDA may be awarded on
the basis of politics rather than merit, priority or research need.
Therefore, the perception might be that the integrity of the research
system and agricultural science is undermined. Last year special grants
were appropriated at nearly $74 million even though the
Administration's request for this year was less than half of that
figure. We recognize that there is pressure to maintain these special
grants. While special grants have their place to address emergency
needs of national priority such as food safety, they may also be used
to address research that is not deemed of the highest priority or
merit. Thus, the proportion of special grants in comparison to the
total research budget at USDA should be decreased.
THE NEED FOR NUTRITION-RELATED RESEARCH
The need for nutrition science and research is critical within the
USDA. Nutrition and agricultural research are areas that impact the
constituents of every congressional district in the nation. New
technologies are demanded to reduce the likelihood of pathogen
transmission by food, to improve the quality of processed foods, and to
deliver greater nutritional value in foods. Additionally the economic
impact on society in healthcare costs produced by advances in nutrition
research is significant in the number of dollars saved by the American
taxpayer. As health costs continue to rise, it is imperative that our
medical practices take a preventive approach. This requires a thorough
understanding of the role of nutrients in foods in preventing chronic
illnesses such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes.
The USDA has a unique role in the area of nutrition research,
particularly as it applies to human nutrition. For example, although
there is a serious and obvious commitment to the funding of disease-
related research within the National Institutes of Health, issues
important to the basic mechanisms of nutrient function and the safety
of the food supply have traditionally been the purview of USDA funded
research. Most of the recent work on nutrient content and availability
in various foods has come from USDA-NRI supported research. From a
consumer perspective, it is this type of information that is often the
most useful.
FOOD SECURITY AND BEHAVIORS
A 1994 Institute of Medicine Report stated that reducing foodborne
illness will require research in all aspects of the food system, from
production to consumption.\3\ For example, identifying the foods most
involved in foodborne illnesses, characterizing new foodborne
pathogens, and developing new monitoring protocols are some ways to
detect pathogens or toxicants responsible for outbreaks and minimize
their impacts. Studies are also needed to identify food behaviors and
nutritional effects in relation to more vulnerable populations such as
infants and the elderly. Also, knowing more about health protectants
will enable individuals to maximize the nutrition and ``healthfulness''
of their food choices relative to the prevention of disease. The need
also exists to better understand the biology and behavior of food
choices. Here we also need to study consumption related to risk
analysis which demands better data on food consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Opportunities in the Nutrition and Food Sciences, Institute of
Medicine, 1994, p. 111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIOTECHNOLOGY AND NUTRITION
Increased interest in enhancing the nutritional quality of the food
supply has sparked ways to design foods not just for disease prevention
but also for health promotion. For example, opportunities exist to
influence food habits and food choices, by using technology to enhance
healthful foods.
Ultimately we will want to know what compositional changes in crop
plants have the best nutritional value. There are many basic questions
left unanswered on the role of diet in health and disease when it comes
to phytonutrients in plants.
USDA is encouraged to collaborate with other federal agencies in
the area of nutrition whenever possible. This objective naturally spans
research done in both the USDA and NIH.
GENETICS AND NUTRITION
Studying genetic interactions will allow us to address several
issues at once. For example, what intakes of nutrients are needed to
achieve optimal health and minimal risk of various diseases associated
with diet? Do requirements differ depending on genetics? How do
genetics influence efficiency of metabolism and does this affect
nutrient requirements? What are metabolic and health consequences of
inadequate nutritional status, as affected by genetics? Many research
opportunities exist in this area.
GENOMICS AND NUTRITION
ASNS supports a recent report from the Federation of American
Societies for Experimental Biology that states, increased funding
should bring an emphasis on all aspects of genomics. Such an initiative
would significantly enhance existing programs within the NRI. One
example might be functional genomics. ASNS has provided detailed
scientific background about this kind of research to USDA program
directors at a recent stakeholders meeting.
Research and resources devoted to unraveling the genomes of a few
selected organisms have been expanding dramatically in recent years.
While the administration of large-scale programs has been placed in
agencies other than USDA, the power and long-term impact of a large-
scale genome initiative directed toward agriculturally important
organisms--including animals, plants, and microbes (plant, animal and
human pathogens)--represents a major opportunity and fulfills an
important need in agriculture.
USDA's NRICGP is well positioned to use genomic data to address
programs in agriculturally important organisms. However, given its
present budget--and even with the most optimistic incremental
increases--the NRICGP currently lacks the resource depth to meet this
challenge. Portions of our proposed increase would be wisely used in
the critically important area of genomics.
ANIMAL WELFARE ACT
Research using animals has been crucial to virtually every advance
in medicine in the past century. Agents for control of high blood
pressure and the management of diabetes, vaccines for the control of
poliomyelitis and mumps, development of artificial joints and heart-
lung machines, and many more medical advances have depended on animal
research.
USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is
charged by Congress to enforce the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Under the
AWA, USDA licenses dealers to buy and sell random-source animals to
research facilities that are unable to obtain them from municipal
pounds and shelters. This provides access to a critical supply of
animals since animals bred specifically for research often lack
characteristics needed by researchers studying health-related problems.
Much of their work relies on older, larger, and genetically diverse
animals.
ASNS recommends that Congress provide APHIS with adequate funding
for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act in fiscal year 2000 so that
it can continue to ensure compliance with the AWA.
CONCLUSION
Agriculture is and will continue to be important to human health in
terms of food that provides proper nutrition for healthier people. As
the future challenges us with more complicated diseases, research must
expand outside the traditional disciplines and approaches, such as the
work that is being done is plant and animal genomics. New approaches
must be implemented to address new societal concerns. For example,
despite our hard efforts to plan healthy diets for school children much
of this food is being wasted. Nutritionists are constantly challenged
to develop nutrient-balanced meals that will encourage our children to
choose more healthful foods. New demands to fit busy lifestyles is
another example. Issues such as product convenience, uniformity of
products, ease of preparation, ``automatic'' nutrient balancing, and
packaging are all areas scientists must address. Research in areas of
how our food is produced, pesticide usage, animal care and food
handling issues also present demands to our scientists. These demands
and opportunities must be answered in a way that sustains or enhances
our quality of life. Although greater challenges lie ahead,
agricultural research funding continues to have slow growth despite
significant increases at other research agencies such as the NIH and
NSF.
It is for these reasons that ASNS reiterates the following
recommendations to the sub-committee:
--Increase funding for USDA's NRICGP from $119 million to $203
million, of which a portion should be allotted for a genomics
initiative.
--ASNS recommends $120 million for the Initiative for Future
Agriculture and Food Systems in which human nutrition research
remains a research priority.
--Provide an increase of $5 million to the National Needs Fellowship
Grants Program so that it may be restored to its previous
funding levels.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MICROBIOLOGY
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plays an essential role in
protecting the nation's health. The Agency enters the 21st century with
rapidly expanding responsibilities and an urgent need for more
resources. The American Society for Microbiology (ASM), which
represents over 42,000 members, believes the Administration's proposed
FDA budget for fiscal year 2001 is a good first step toward providing
increased support for the critical public health activities of the FDA.
The nearly $1.4 billion budget requested for FDA by the Administration
represents an increase of 13 percent, or $176 million over the fiscal
year 2000 enacted level.
Providing an adequate budget for the FDA is essential because the
nation's burgeoning medical and food research efforts will result in
steadily increased numbers of products before the FDA for review. This
review must be based on solid, state-of-the-art science, which requires
financial resources and trained personnel. The fiscal year 2001 budget
request recognizes the importance of FDA's traditional dual roles: that
of ensuring the highest level of safety for already marketed products,
and that of ensuring in a timely fashion the release of new products
that benefit the American public.
FDA research should be recognized as an important component of the
nation's overall biomedical research program and should receive
increased attention and funding. Every FDA decision which influences
public health must be based on current, highest quality research.
With its focus on the microbiological sciences, the ASM fully
appreciates the complexity and critical nature of the FDA's efforts to
manage health risks to humans and animals, to develop new scientific
research within the Agency itself, and to interact effectively with the
public, industry and academia alike. Several specific areas of the FDA
mission are of particular interest to the ASM membership and
demonstrate the need for additional resources: FDA research in the
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) which enables FDA
to respond to scientific and technological advances, vaccine safety,
blood safety, gene therapy safety and diagnostics related to infectious
diseases; FDA capacity to respond to food safety involving foodborne
pathogens and antibiotic resistance acquired by pathogenic
microorganisms and to reduce the number of deaths from medical errors;
and FDA participation in U.S. bioterrorism preparedness to ensure an
adequate program in this country.
FDA RESEARCH
The ASM strongly supports budgetary increases to improve FDA's
science base. The FDA must be given the resources to keep pace with
accelerating technology and to take advantage of scientific
opportunities to best serve the American public.
Basic research by the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research contributes to the Agency's ability to respond to escalating
product market in a timely and knowledgeable manner. The ASM recommends
adoption of the Adminstration's fiscal year 2001 budget request for
increased support of CBER and its research efforts, at a time when the
demands on the FDA's expertise are growing rapidly.
To ensure the fruits of the nation's biomedical research successes,
the FDA will face complex, often unexpected, demands in this new
century, as both science and public needs change and change again over
time. We can predict challenges, such as continued safety of our blood
supply and enlarging stockpiles of vaccines to counter potential
bioterrorism. Others, such as still unknown microbial pathogens and
expanding antibiotic resistance, can only be anticipated. Not only must
the FDA have at hand the latest in known technology, it must
consistently develop innovative ways to eliminate future threats to
public health and remain able to adapt rapidly to ever new challenges.
In the past 20 years, expenditures in drug research have increased
seven-fold, resulting in more and more potential products in need of
science-based evaluation by the FDA. Although the FDA is not a basic
research agency, it must be able to respond to constant changes in both
its consumer constituency and the challenges it faces daily. Thus
research is an important component of its broad based mission. In the
face of a rapidly shifting research environment, the FDA, like all
research agencies, must stay at the forefront of scientific knowledge,
through both the efforts of its own scientists and the communication
with others involved in safeguarding public safety. It must be able to
recruit and retain high quality personnel capable of adapting to
consumers' concerns, changes in the marketplace, the varied threats to
public health, and new processing practices by the growing numbers of
product producers. This enormous task mandates strong fiscal support
from the Congress, sustained over time and into the future.
FOOD SAFETY AND ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE
The ASM commends the Congress' and the Administration's support in
recent years of the national Food Safety Initiative, a collaborative
program of the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The $30 million requested by the
Administration for this important initiative in fiscal year 2001 will
support program goals already underway, including expansion of domestic
food inspection, development of nationwide standards for on-farm and
in-plant preventive controls, further research on molecular methods to
rapidly identify foodborne pathogens, and completion of the National
Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System.
The Food Safety Initiative is just one example of science-based
success in the past year. In addition to the National Antimicrobial
Resistance Monitoring System, two other national systems to assure food
safety are now in place: FoodNet, a foodborne disease tracking system,
and PulseNet, a computerized database of bacterial DNA subtypes to help
determine whether scattered disease outbreaks are due to a common food
source. The FDA recently developed a method to detect as many as 13
foodborne pathogens in one suspected food sample. Several outbreaks of
foodborne illness were shortened in the past year, in part through the
efforts of the FDA and its partners in food safety.
Food production and consumption patterns have changed considerably
in recent decades. New foodborne pathogens, more meals prepared and
eaten away from the home, more complicated food processing methods
multiply the possibilities of contamination. Some foodborne pathogens
have become far more deadly in recent years, such as pathogenic E. coli
and antibiotic resistant Salmonella. The local food market is now part
of a global grocery store, a system of imported and exported foods that
must be regulated by the FDA. And the populations most vulnerable to
foodborne diseases, such as children and the elderly, have increased to
account for as much as 25 percent of the U.S. population further
complicating the FDA's mission as protector of public health.
MEDICAL ERRORS
As the nation's population ages and becomes more diverse, the
health care system becomes more stressed, more susceptible to human and
technological errors. This has been and continues to be a major area of
concern to the FDA, as the Federal agency charged with product safety.
A recent study by the Institute of Medicine estimated that nearly
100,000 Americans may be dying each year as a result of preventable
medical errors. Part of this disturbing situation can be attributed to
human error, part to an exploding array of drugs, medical devices,
blood and other biological products used in health care settings.
The $12.8 million requested to respond to preventable medical
mistakes will help assure the safety of vaccines, therapeutic agents,
blood products, medical devices and other tools used by the U.S. health
care industry--an important step toward minimizing the number of
deaths.
BIOTERRORISM
Unfortunately, the threat of a biological attack against American
citizens must be taken seriously, and U.S. preparedness for an
emergency response is essential. There is need to ensure expeditious
development and licensure of new vaccines for smallpox, anthrax and
other biological agents that might be weaponized. The ASM recommends
that Congress provide the requested $11.5 million to FDA to help
counter bioterrorism and work, in collaboration with NIH, CDC, DOD,
academia and private industry, to ensure the development of vaccines,
diagnostics and therapeutics to be used in response to selected
biological and chemical agents. The FDA needs resources to
expeditiously review and approve new drugs, therapeutics, vaccines and
anti-toxins against biological warfare agents in the interest of
national security and public health.
CONCLUSION
Through its many and diverse responsibilities, the FDA provides the
United States with not only an improved national health but a
collective peace of mind. Much of its work is never recognized, as the
FDA often works behind the scenes to benefit the American public. The
Agency provides tangible results such as prevention of foodborne
disease through systematic monitoring of production facilities and
screening of the blood supply. FDA approval of the Hemophilus
influenzae type B vaccine will save the United States an estimated $150
to $400 million annually in health care costs. The FDA is also
targeting as a principal concern medical errors, which are estimated to
cost as much as $80 billion a year. FDA researchers contribute as well
to the scientific knowledge base, thus enhancing new product
development by industry and public research organizations, and helping
the United States remain a world leader in new product development.
The ASM thanks the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit
testimony and would be pleased to respond to any questions.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MICROBIOLOGY
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS
The U.S. agricultural system is one of the most productive and
efficient in the world, due in part to past technological innovations.
Agricultural research plays a crucial role in promoting the nation's
economic growth, improving environmental quality, and assuring
innovative scientific research. Federal support for agricultural
research is essential, in order to build the broad knowledge base
needed to commercialize new and improved agricultural products and
tools.
U.S. agriculture, however, continues to face an array of
challenges, including the threats of new and emerging diseases, public
concern about food safety and the agriculture industry's impact on the
environment, not to mention an increasing global population. It is
critical to increase the investment in research to respond to these
challenges. We encourage Congress to build on the renewed focus on
agricultural research in recent years, which will benefit not only U.S.
agriculture but also the health and well being of every American
citizen.
cooperative state research, education and extension service
The ASM strongly supports competitive peer reviewed research that
is open to all the nation's scientists. The ASM urges the Subcommittee
to support the President's request of $150 million for the National
Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRI) within the
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES),
an increase of $31 million over the fiscal year 2000 appropriation. The
proposed increase will address important research areas in agriculture
including food safety, plant and animal genetics, and pest and disease
management.
The ASM is pleased to see the President's continued support for the
Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS). This
competitive grants program differs from the NRI in that it provides
$120 million in fully offset mandatory funding for research and
extension projects that are multi-disciplinary and applied in scope and
target critical and emerging agriculture issues. ASM encourages the
Congress to support this needed infusion of research money.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
The ASM supports the President's request to increase funding for
the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) by 7.7 percent or $64 million
in fiscal year 2001. This increase will enable the ARS to support both
ongoing and new initiatives in such areas as emerging and exotic
diseases, invasive species, plant and animal genetics research, food
safety, technologies for production and conversion of crops into
biobased products and bioenergy, and research initiatives on soil,
water and air quality.
U.S. agriculture is experiencing severe problems caused by new and
reemerging infectious diseases in plants and animals, a threat which
requires immediate attention. Changes in agricultural practices,
population growth, climate, microbial evolution, animal migration, and
international trade and travel are all factors in the threat of
introducing new plant and animal diseases into the U.S. agriculture
system. The lack of knowledge to effectively manage and control new and
reemerging infectious disease often leads to serious consequences such
as reduced crop yield and unacceptable quality. Billions of dollars are
lost through trade embargoes, quarantines, and the destruction of
agricultural fields to control the spread of disease. The President's
budget requests $23.2 million for ARS to address major threats to U.S.
agriculture from exotic diseases, pests and invasive species. This
increase includes $10 million for expanding the diagnostic capabilities
to prevent acts of chemical and biological terrorism against U.S.
agricultural and food security systems. The increase will also provide
additional funds to prevent and control emerging infectious and
zoonotic diseases afflicting livestock and aquaculture. The ASM urges
the Congress to provide the President's request for these activities.
BIOBASED PRODUCTS
The ASM supports the requested increase of $14 million for research
to accelerate the conversion of agricultural materials and feedstocks
into biofuels, and enhance the advancement of valuable biobased
products. Such scientific advancements in biobased product research
allow for enhanced farm income, strengthened U.S. energy security, and
environmental protection.
USDA FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE
The ASM recommends that Congress provide additional funding to USDA
of at least the $5.7 million increase to expand food safety research in
support of the President's Food Safety Initiative. New funding is
essential for research on antibiotic resistant bacteria in poultry,
swine and cattle; to control bacteria and pathogens carried by animals
and transmitted to humans and to develop intervention strategies used
in HACCP to reduce the risk of pathogen infestation in meat and
poultry, as well as implementation of the Shell Egg Action Plan.
USDA'S NATIONAL FOOD GENOME STRATEGY
The ASM is disappointed that no request has been made for genetic
resources for microorganisms. Microbes are involved in all aspects of
agriculture--from beneficial uses of microbes in food (i.e. yogurt,
cheese, bread, beer and wine) 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 could lead to the
development of new technologies to provide improved foods and better
pest control to protect the nation's crops, to reduce the incidence of
plant and animal disease, and to ensure a safer food supply.
USDA ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
The ASM urges the Congress to provide the requested $16 million, an
increase of $5 million, for the fiscal year 2001 appropriation for the
Animal Care Unit within the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS), which is the regulatory body mandated to enforce laboratory
animal care. This increase would maintain current activities, while
allowing for increased inspections and improved follow-up to verify
corrections of prospective violators. Additionally, APHIS would expand
outreach efforts to the general public and AWA regulated facilities by
increasing the amount of educational resources available, encourage
participation at industry meetings, and allow the development of
industry specific training for animal care and welfare.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on USDA
programs. We would be pleased to respond to any questions.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLEGES
The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) is pleased to
submit its views on the fiscal year 2001 appropriation for the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA). The AAMC represents the nation's 125
accredited medical schools, some 400 major teaching hospitals and
health systems, and 91 academic and professional societies representing
over 75,000 faculty members. Our members and institutions educate and
prepare physicians to meet evolving health needs, conduct research
leading to the discovery of medical knowledge and the development of
innovative treatments and therapies, and provide basic and specialized
health care services. We believe that the FDA should be recognized as
an important component of the nation's overall commitment to biomedical
research and should receive similar attention and funding. The AAMC
supports the administration's $1.4 billion budget request for fiscal
year 2001 as a good first step toward providing increased support for
the agency's critical public health activities.
As the FDA enters the 21st century, the agency faces rapidly
expanding responsibilities and an urgent need for more resources. The
presence in the FDA of a vigorous, high-quality intramural research
program provides the essential foundation for sound regulatory policy,
and ensures that the FDA is, and will continue to be, well positioned
to carry out its statutory responsibilities to protect, promote and
enhance the health of the American people. Providing an adequate budget
for the FDA is essential because the nation's burgeoning medical
research efforts will result in steadily increased numbers of products
for the FDA to review.
In the past 20 years, expenditures in drug research have increased
seven-fold, resulting in more potential products in need of scientific-
based evaluation. In the next several years, the FDA expects a
continued increase in both the number and complexity of applications.
To address properly the challenges of facilitating the development and
use of traditional and novel pharmaceutical products, FDA research
programs will be directed toward solving the scientific problems that
impact regulation. FDA research is needed to address issues where there
may be a significant lack of the information required for scientific
decision-making. This includes data necessary for risk assessments,
validation of methods, and standardization of products.
A strong FDA science capability is equally critical in
understanding and managing risks associated with products that are
already on the market. These reviews must be based on solid, state-of-
the-art science, which requires financial resources and trained
personnel. A strong and well-managed intramural research program
provides the foundation for creating a climate of scientific
communication and discovery within the FDA that enhances the ability of
the agency to recruit and retain high-quality personnel. Internal
research expertise enhances the agency's ability to seek out and
critically evaluate external scientific input, and creates a platform
from which agency staff can productively interact with external
scientific expertise from academia, industry and other Federal agencies
as respected and knowledgeable colleagues.
In the face of a rapidly changing research environment, the FDA,
like all research agencies, must stay at the forefront of scientific
knowledge. Given the extraordinarily rapid pace of achievements in
fundamental scientific disciplines, the intimate proximity and
interaction of cutting-edge scientific research with review and
regulatory activities is more important today than ever before. If the
FDA is not in a state of scientific readiness when applications are
received, then the agency must either delay regulatory decisions on
important new products until we have adequate knowledge, or make very
conservative decisions in order to err on the side of caution.
Through its many and diverse responsibilities, the FDA provides the
nation with not only an improved national health but a collective peace
of mind. Much of its work is never recognized, as the FDA often works
behind the scenes to benefit the American public. The FDA's role in
evaluating existing and novel drugs and devices must not be overlooked
in the national efforts to increase funding for biomedical research. To
keep pace with the increasing quantity and complexity of scientific
progress, the FDA needs additional financial and human resources.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request recognizes the importance of
research in FDA's traditional dual roles of premarket review and
postmarket surveillance, which ensure the highest possible levels of
safety for current products, and timely review and release of new
products to benefit the American public. Once again, we ask you to
consider carefully the Administration's $1.4 billion fiscal year 2001
budget request for the FDA as critical first step toward providing
increased support for the agency's public health activities. The AAMC
thanks the subcommittee for this opportunity to comment on funding for
the FDA's research efforts.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH DIRECTORS OF THE
HISTORICALLY BLACK 1890 LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITIES
Senator Thad Cochran, Chairman, and other distinguished members of
the Committee, my name is Samuel L. Donald, Regional Research Director
for the Association of Research Directors of the Historically Black
1890 Land-Grant Universities, including Tuskegee University (hereafter
referred to as the 1890s). Mr. Chairman, I submit, on behalf of the
1890 community, this written testimony in support of the fiscal year
2001 Budget recommendations for the 1890s.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Mr. Chairman, today, the rich legacy of the land-grant tradition
remains prominent on the campuses of the 1890s. These institutions are
increasingly serving as economic instruments of the State and the
nation. They have their extraordinary influence on the lives of all
citizens including African Americans and other minority groups. While
enduring inequities in State and Federal funding, the 1890s serve as
exemplary role models; provide educational access to those who may
otherwise be denied the opportunity to pursue a college education; and
foster an unyielding commitment to academic excellence, social equality
and the assurance of a decent future for all students including those
from the lowest economic strata of the nation. These universities have
been in the forefront of educating youth-at-risk, producing research
vital to the quality of life and the environment, and addressing the
social and economic needs of urban and rural communities. Teaching,
research and extension remain prominent on the campuses of the 1890s.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND IMPACTS
Historically Public Black Colleges and Universities (HPBCUs)
constitute some of the largest and most prestigious institutions of
higher education in the nation. Among them, two of the largest are 1890
HPBCUs. Several of the 1890s offer doctoral degrees and/or professional
degrees in engineering, food science, toxicology, environmental
science, and other areas of national need. Three of the top five HPBCUs
in the nation contributing to the production of African American
doctorates are 1890s. Annually, six HPBCUs produce nearly 20 percent of
all African American bachelor degree recipients in engineering and the
1890s graduate over 80 percent of all Black recipients of bachelor
degrees in agricultural sciences. Tuskegee University alone has trained
more than 80 percent of the nation's Black veterinarians.
The 1890s depend heavily on Federal support for sustaining their
academic, research, and extension programs. These institutions
contributions to science and other accomplishments are reasons for
maintaining and expanding the Federal partnership. For the purposes of
improved food quality and food safety, improved and sustained
agriculture production, improved quality of life for rural people,
etc., some of the more recent accomplishments of the 1890s are:
--Provided small farm clients with management and production
techniques that led to new business opportunities.
--Responded to the changing demands in food and agricultural systems
by listening and developing new approaches that meet clientele
needs.
--Developed new invitro systems for enhancing root system development
of pine and hardwood trees.
--Found that increased production of rapeseed will provide an
efficient domestic source of erucic acid oil, reduce expensive
imports of rapeseed oil, help control environmental pollution
resulting from use of inorganic pesticides, and assist in the
development of sustainable crop production.
--Found that N-methyl aspartate enhanced growth and reduced fat in
swine and chickens.
--Encouraged (and assisted) small farmers to take advantage of niche
markets to generate additional farm income.
--Provided educational resources to assist small farmers and limited
resource families acquire jobs and better manage what they
earn.
--Determined that lambs and kids produced on cowpeas are lean and low
in fat and are preferred by consumers.
--Through research and outreach, provide small farmers with
information about alternative enterprises that are
environmental friendly.
--Developed a new vegetable-legume cropping system for small-scale
farmers in the Southeast.
--Provide sound science as the basis for improving food quality.
--Determine that dietary omega-3 polyunsaturated fats have beneficial
properties to change physical and biochemical processes to
control blood pressure.
--Developed technology to improve goat meat and fiber production.
--Developed intensified ``Farm Planning Program'' for farmers to
improve profitability from crops, livestock, and alternative
farm enterprises.
--Conducted senior citizens conferences on consumer fraud, security,
energy conservation, and modification of dwellings for
handicapped use and access.
The above accomplishments had major impacts on improving (a) the
quality of lives of people served and (b) the entrepreneurial skills
and farming operations of farmers served. The bottom line is, due
primarily to Federal appropriated dollars to the 1890s, many under-
served clientele, customers and stakeholders have a ``brighter''
tomorrow.
BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1890s support the fiscal year 2001 budget recommendations of
the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
(NASULGC) which emphasizes modest increased funding for the research,
extension, and academic programs. Mr. Chairman, the 1890s urge the
Committee to strongly support the NASULGC recommendations which
includes the following for the 1890s:
Evans-Allen Research Program ($36.197 Million).--The 1890s request
a marginal increase in base funds for research. These funds will
enhance the capacity of these institutions to become more competitive
in the private sector and in domestic and international research
endeavors designed to undergird the vitality of the nation's
agricultural enterprise. This support will enhance the ability of the
1890s to compete for grants and contracts in a wider variety of
programs in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, other Federal agencies,
and the private sector.
Capacity Building Grants Program ($15 Million).--The Capacity
Building Grants Program is making a major difference in the quality and
quantity of teaching and research programs in food and agricultural
sciences and technology on the campuses of the 1890s. Since the
creation of this enormously important program, the 1890 leadership has
strongly advocated a substantial and sustained increase in funding at
more than $25 million annually. This level of funding would allow these
institutions to significantly improve the range and level of academic
programs offered, enhance the performance and productivity of faculty
in the sciences, and increase research opportunities for undergraduate
and graduate students. However, consistent with NASULGC's
recommendation, the 1890s support the request of $15 million.
1890 Facilities Grants Program ($15 Million).--The 1890s
unequivocally support the $15 million facilities funding request in the
NASULGC budget for renovation, maintenance and overall improvement of
the infrastructure on our campuses. The 1890s face nearly
insurmountable barriers in attracting public and private support for
enhancement of facilities. Although this level of funding will not
fully address the critical facility needs of our institutions, it will
complement existing efforts to make major improvements.
Extension Program ($31.674 Million).--The 1890s support a modest
increase in base funding requested by NASULGC for extension activities.
This marginal increase will allow our institutions to sustain program
activity at current levels and respond more efficiently to the growing
demand for services in severely depressed and under-served communities.
Mr. Chairman, in addition to the NASULGC budget recommendations for
the 1890s, support is sought for the following:
1890 Agricultural Biotechnology Research/Graduate Program Grants
($8 Million).--A new initiative that is not in the NASULGC budget
recommendations for the 1890s is a Research/Graduate Program,
emphasizing biotechnology. Biotechnology is one of the major areas in
which the 1890s are recognizing the importance of strengthening their
role as a national resource in conducting research in biotechnology,
biosafety and food security. The 1890s seek support to conduct basic
and applied research in biotechnology and to engage in partnerships
with national laboratories and biotech industries. Funds would be used
to develop graduate programs that build and strengthen areas of
specialization in food and agricultural sciences, biotechnology and
related disciplines, to provide fellowships and assistantships for
graduate students, summer research and professional development
fellowships for graduate students, and research and professional
development assistance for faculty. The budget request is a permanent
line item of $8,000,000 to be appropriated to the Agricultural Research
Service of USDA, exclusively for 1890s.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Chairman, based on past accomplishments and visionary approach,
the 1890s are positioning themselves to enter the 21st Century with a
renewed commitment and capacity to implement their land-grant mission
of teaching, research and extension. Full appropriations of the fiscal
year 2001 budget recommendations as stated above will facilitate this
and is vital to the 1890 Land-Grant Universities.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY ORGANIZATION
The following is the statement of the Biotechnology Industry
Organization (BIO) in support of increased funds for the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) in the fiscal year 2001 budget. BIO
represents more than 900 biotechnology companies, academic institutions
and State biotechnology centers in 47 States and 26 nations. BIO
members are engaged in biotechnology research on medicines,
diagnostics, agriculture, pollution control and industrial
applications.
Our industry's goal is to develop products that will cure disease,
improve the quality and quantity of the world's food supply, and clean
up the environment. Our success in achieving those objectives is
dependent upon an expert and productive FDA.
BIO supports increased funding for the FDA. In addition to our own
advocacy efforts, we have joined together with organizations
representing some of the other FDA-regulated industries to urge
Congress to provide increased funds for fiscal year 2001 for the
agency. Specifically, our coalition has called for an increase of at
least 13 percent over last year. This is the amount included in the
President's budget request absent the imposition of additional user
fees. The text of our coalition's letter to the Chairman and Ranking
Member of this subcommittee is attached.
Funding for the FDA will have a direct impact on the lives of
millions of Americans. Important new biopharmaceuticals are being
developed for a variety of diseases including cancers, Alzheimer's
Disease, and diabetes. In 1992, industry and the FDA negotiated an
innovative collaboration pursuant to which industry funds a portion of
the FDA review program through user fees on prescription drugs and
biologics.
However, the Federal appropriation for the FDA has remained
relatively flat over the past several years. The result is that despite
the revenues generated by user fees paid by our industry, the true
operating budget of the agency has shrunk after inflation and
federally-mandated pay raises for staff have been calculated.
In constant dollars, the agency has less money now than it had in
1993 for its activities not funded by user fees or earmarked programs
such as tobacco and food safety. Therefore, while the agency has
received a $450 million increase in current dollars since 1993, only
$91 million has been available for non-user fee, non-earmarked
programs.
When the FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA) was enacted in 1997, both
industry and the FDA agreed to implement programs that would accelerate
the drug development process. In fact, FDAMA expressly recognizes that
FDA should not only serve as a regulator, but also as an agency that
provides assistance to biotechnology companies that are developing
drugs and biologics.
Many of these new responsibilities are resource intensive and are
not fully financed by user fees. For example, if FDA places a
``clinical hold'' on a research trial, it must respond in writing
within 30 days of receipt of a written request to remove the hold and
specify the reasons for its decision. In addition, the law requires FDA
to meet with companies in an effort to reach agreement on the design
and size of clinical trials on a drug or biological product.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that FDAMA
implementation will cost $41 million each year. Without sufficient
funding, FDA reform cannot succeed. This will lead to development
delays for important and cost effective new drugs, compromising an
already stressed health care system. Moreover, review of some biologic
products fall outside the user fee program. These applications will
suffer serious delays without additional resources for the agency.
Our nation makes a huge investment in biomedical research. For
example, a few years ago, Congress began the process of doubling the
budget for the National Institutes of Health over a five year period.
BIO supports these increases. However, for Americans to benefit from
this investment, the FDA must be capable of reviewing and regulating
the products that are ultimately developed from this research.
Otherwise, potentially life saving drugs and other products will never
reach the patients that need them. A recent survey of biotechnology,
pharmaceutical and medical device firms confirms that the lack of
highly skilled reviewers unduly delays product approval.
Over the past several years, the Clinton Administration and some in
Congress seem to have adopted a strategy that assumes additional user
fees will be enacted and paid by other regulated industries.
Accordingly, the appropriations for the agency have been less than
adequate. This occurred again in the President's fiscal year 2001
budget request that includes unauthorized user fees. BIO agrees that it
is appropriate for industries to pay user fees. However, this issue
should be debated independent of the appropriations process.
In addition to its existing commitments, the agency needs to have
the resources to respond to new situations. For example, since the
tragic death of Jesse Gelsinger, the FDA is considering new actions to
increase oversight of gene therapy clinical trials. Some initiatives
have already been announced and others are still being developed.
There are two reasons why it is critical that the FDA have the
monies to perform these functions. First, we support FDA's initiatives
because FDA oversight is critical to maintain public confidence in the
safety of this new and promising research. Moreover, when the agency
takes action to respond to pressing issues such as these, extra
resources are needed so that other critical, longstanding agency
priorities are not slowed.
An adequately funded FDA is also necessary for capital formation
for our industry. Our investors need to know that products from
biotechnology companies will get a timely and high-quality review from
the agency. Increased funds are necessary to achieve this goal. In
addition, when the overall appropriation for the agency is low or
remains flat, critical infrastructure needs such as personnel,
facilities, and equipment are left unmet. This hurts the overall
performance of the agency.
The FDA plays a critical role for our nation. By providing science-
based regulation, it helps speed the delivery of new, life saving
products to the public, while ensuring that these products are safe. An
investment in the FDA today will clearly pay large dividends in the
future.
For more information about BIO's views on this issue, please call
Michael Werner, Esq., Director of Federal Government Relations and
Bioethics Counsel at (202)-857-0244 or [email protected].
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT CENTRAL
CALIFORNIA OZONE STUDY COALITION
Members of the Subcommittee: 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
2001 funding request of $250,000 from CSREES for the Central California
Ozone Study (CCOS).
Ozone and particulate matter standards in most of central
California are frequently exceeded. In 2003, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) will require that California submit SIPs
to for the recently promulgated, national, 8-hour ozone standard. It is
expected that such SIPs will be required for the San Francisco Bay
Area, the Sacramento Valley, the San Joaquin Valley, and the Mountain
Counties Air Basins. Photochemical air quality modeling will be
necessary to prepare SIPs that are acceptable to the U.S. EPA.
Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) is designed to enable central
California to meet Clean Air Act requirements for ozone State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) as well as advance fundamental science for
use nationwide. The CCOS field measurement program will be conducted in
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,
modeling performance evaluations, 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:
--Developing the design of the field study (task already underway)
--Conducting an intensive field monitoring study, scheduled for 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
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 are currently managing the California Regional
Particulate 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
$8.6 million for the field study. In addition, CCOS sponsors will
provide $4 million of in-kind support. The Policy Committee is
continuing to seek additional funding ($9.0 million) for a future
deposition study, data analysis, and modeling. 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 2001, our Coalition is seeking funding of $250,000
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 biomass burning and
alternatives to open burning. Biomass burning is managed in order to
minimize smoke impacts and avoid violations of ambient air quality
standards. The air quality impacts of using biomass as a fuel source
and as an alternative to open burning need to be addressed. CCOS will
improve the ability to assess the impacts of biomass power plants.
There is a national need to address national data gaps and
California should not bear the entire cost of the addressing these
gaps. National data gaps include issues relating to the integration of
particulate matter and ozone control strategies. The CCOS field study
will take place concurrently with the California Regional Particulate
Matter Study--previously jointly funded through Federal, State, local
and private sector funds. Thus, CCOS is timed to enable leveraging of
the efforts for the particulate matter study. Some equipment and
personnel can serve dual functions so that CCOS is very cost-effective.
From a technical standpoint, carrying out both studies concurrently is
a unique opportunity to address the integration of particulate matter
and ozone control efforts. CCOS will also be cost-effective since it
builds on other successful efforts including the 1990 San Joaquin
Valley Ozone Study. To effectively address these issues requires
federal assistance and CCOS provides a mechanism by which California
pays half the cost of work that the Federal Government should pursue.
Scientists at the University of Nevada, Desert Research Institute
(DRI) are the principal investigators for CCOS. To expedite research
studies related to biomass burning and smoke management for CCOS, it is
requested that funds provided by CSREES be allocated directly to DRI.
We appreciate the Subcommittee's consideration of our request.
Thank you very much.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA
Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the City of Gainesville, Florida, I
appreciate the opportunity to present this written testimony to you
today. The City of Gainesville is seeking federal funds in the fiscal
year 2001 Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill to assist our efforts to protect the Florida
Aquifer from stormwater runoff which starts out in Gainesville's
Sweetwater Branch Basin.
Sweetwater Branch Project
The City of Gainesville is seeking $1.5 million in funding
assistance for a $2 million stormwater management project intended to
remove 90 percent or more of the sediment and debris from the
Sweetwater Branch creek flow preventing those undesirable materials
from entering the Paynes Prairie Preserve, thereby helping to insure
and protect the Florida Aquifer as the major source of drinking water
for the State of Florida.
The Sweetwater Branch basin contains approximately 1,710 acres, and
is located mainly in the southeast central portion of the City of
Gainesville. The outfall from this basin discharges into Paynes
Prairie, a State-owned preserve and park system, where the creek flow
is directed into the Alachua Sink. The Alachua Sink is a natural
sinkhole that drains directly into the Florida aquifer.
The Florida Aquifer provides the majority of drinking water to
Florida's residents and has a direct impact on the Florida Everglades.
In addition, many domestic water wells are used to obtain water from
surficial and intermediate aquifers in the Gainesville area.
The Sweetwater Branch drainage basin contains urban, commercial,
industrial, and residential area stormwater runoff. Because the
Sweetwater Branch runs through some of the oldest portions of
Gainesville, most stormwater runoff is directly discharged into the
Branch with very little flooding attenuation or pollution loading
reduction. In addition, there is insufficient undeveloped land
available to accommodate stormwater management facilities except for
the area very near the Paynes Prairie outfall.
Pollution reduction of the Sweetwater Branch surface waters before
entering the Paynes Prairie Preserve will assist in the re-
establishment of the Preserve's natural aesthetics and re-establishment
of the natural ecological systems of the Preserve, in addition to
providing protection for a major source of drinking water. The runoff
also has the potential to negatively impact threatened and endangered
wildlife such as the American Bald Eagle, the Woodstork, the Florida
Sandhill Crane and the Southeastern American Kestral. In summary, the
situation has created a concern amongst environmentalists, business
leaders, and concerned citizens throughout the region that Paynes
Prairie and the Florida Aquifer are being compromised.
With this in mind, the City of Gainesville, Alachua County, the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the St. Johns River
Water Management District, and local citizens are all seeking a
comprehensive ecosystem management solution to the problem of
stormwater runoff from downtown entering Sweetwater Branch, Paynes
Prairie and the Alachua Sink.
The project devised by these groups would reduce or eliminate the
sediment, debris, nutrients and general pollutants currently being
discharged into Paynes Prairie and eventually the Florida aquifer from
the Sweetwater Branch Creek.
Current projections are that the project would consist of the
following three components:
--the purchase of undeveloped property in the vicinity of State Road
331 and Sweetwater Branch;
--the construction of maintainable sediment and debris removal
systems; and
--the construction of maintainable nutrient removal systems.
Removing all pollutants at the discharge end of Sweetwater Branch
would cost at least $14-$20 million. Smaller projects upstream of the
Prairie have been initiated at the local level. Expenditures of about
$2 million are identified for three such smaller projects: (1) the Duck
Pond, (2) the Baffle Box, and (3) the Downtown (a Brownfield Area)
Stormwater Facility. These smaller projects are designed to deal with
specific subbasins and water quality issues. The current projects now
planned utilizing local resources will only clean up parts of the
basin. Considerable flow and accompanying pollution still will go
through to the Prairie. An additional facility is needed to clean up
the rest of the flow.
An in-depth engineering analysis of the creek system, property
topography, associated wetlands, and other pertinent factors would be
accomplished to determine the optimum and appropriate scope of property
purchase and facilities construction. The City is prepared to pay some
of the cost for this analysis, and has received a $500,000 grant from
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, but we are simply unable to
bear the entire burden. As a result, we request that the Subcommittee
appropriate $1.5 million to assist our efforts.
The requested federal funds, if awarded, will be used by the City
to secure the necessary property rights and to construct the facility.
Once the project construction is complete, Gainesville's Stormwater
Management Utility, a public utility, would provide the required annual
operating and maintenance funding, and no further federal maintenance
funds would be needed.
In closing, federal support is critical for this initiative. As a
result, we respectfully request that the Subcommittee will give funding
assistance for our project every consideration throughout the fiscal
year 2001 appropriations process.
______
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,
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. Without aggressive
action, however, U.S. agriculture exports are projected to remain below
$50 billion this year due to a combination of factors, including
continued subsidized foreign competition and related artificial trade
barriers. U.S. agriculture's trade surplus is also expected to remain
around $11.5 billion, down nearly 50 percent from 1996, with continued
low commodity prices also forecast.
Also troubling is the erosion in the U.S. market share of global
agricultural trade. In fact, this could culminate in the United States
losing out to the European Union (EU) as the world's top agricultural
exporter sometime this year. We believe that a major reason for this
decline in market share lies in the more aggressive promotion
expenditures of our foreign competitors.
According to a recent USDA study, the EU and other foreign
competitors are outspending the U.S. by a factor of 20 to 1 with regard
to the use of export subsidies and other expenditures for export
promotion. In 1997, in addition to spending over $7.2 billion in export
subsidies, our leading foreign competitors spent a combined $924
million on various activities to promote their exports of agricultural,
forestry, and fishery products, including some $365 million by the EU.
According to the most recent information by USDA, spending by these
competitor countries on market promotion has increased by 35 percent,
or nearly $1 billion, in the past three years, while U.S. spending
remained flat. 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 more to promote
their agricultural exports to the United States, than the U.S. is
currently spending ($90 million) to promote American-grown and produced
commodities worldwide! And according to the most recent USDA numbers,
for the first time ever, during fiscal year 1999 we imported almost $1
billion more in agricultural products from the EU than we exported to
them.
The USDA study noted above goes on to say that ``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 and New
Zealand have also sharply bolstered their export promotion expenditures
in recent years.
Clearly, as the EU and our other foreign competitors made clear in
Seattle, they intend to continue to be aggressive in their export
efforts. For this reason, we believe the Administration and Congress
should immediately strengthen funding for MAP and other export
programs, and ensure that such programs are fully and aggressively
utilized. Since MAP was originally authorized, funding has been
gradually reduced from a high of $200 million to its current level of
$90 million--a reduction of more than 50 percent. Again, given what our
foreign trade competitors are doing, we believe it's time to restore
funding for this vitally important program up to its original level.
American agriculture is the most competitive industry in the world, but
it can not and should not be expected to compete alone against the
treasuries of foreign governments.
In order to reverse the decline in funding over the past decade for
a number of our agricultural export programs, the Coalition is strongly
supporting legislation (S. 1983) introduced by Senators Murray (D-WA)
and Craig (R-ID), et al. that would authorize no less than $90 million
and up to $200 million per year for MAP. The bill would also provide a
minimum of $35 million for the Foreign Market Development (FMD)
Cooperator Program for cost-share assistance to help boost U.S.
agriculture exports. Further, it would allow up to 50 percent of
available funds under the Export Enhancement Program (EEP) to be used
for related market development and promotion activities.
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 one of 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. By
any measure, they have been tremendously successful and extremely cost-
effective in helping maintain and expand U.S. agricultural exports,
protect American jobs, and strengthen farm income. In addition to
helping achieve these objectives, enactment of S. 1983 would provide
needed flexibility to respond to changing market conditions and
capitalize on potential new market opportunities. It would also send a
powerful message to our foreign competitors and strengthen the U.S.
negotiating position in future trade talks.
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. 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.
______
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. With the enactment of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIRA), the Congress concluded that
the Salinity Control Program could be most effectively implemented as
one of the components of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
Since the enactment of FAIRA, the Salinity Control Program has not been
funded at a level adequate to ensure that water quality standards in
the Colorado River, with respect to total dissolved solids (salinity),
will be honored, nor is the funding sufficient to prevent salt loading
from irrigated farms from impacting the quality of water delivered to
Mexico under a minute of the International Boundary and Water
Commission, United States and Mexico.
The Salinity Control Program has been subsumed into the EQIP
program without the Secretary of Agriculture giving adequate
recognition to the requirement in Section 202(c) in the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Act to carry out salinity control measures.
Water users hundreds of miles downstream are the beneficiaries of this
water quality improvement program. Agriculturalists in the Upper Basin,
however, see local benefits as well as downstream benefits and have
submitted cost-effective proposals to the State Conservationists in
Utah, Wyoming and Colorado. Priority Area proposals for EQIP funding
are ranked in each state under the direction of the NRCS State
Conservationist. Existing ranking criteria, however, does not consider
downstream benefits (particularly out of state benefits) when proposals
are being evaluated.
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 1200
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 is moving to appoint a coordinator for this multi-state effort.
The Basin states were led to believe by Congressional staff that
when the EQIP program was created, the $200,000,000 annual Commodity
Credit Corporation (CCC) borrowing authority given to the Secretary
would ensure that through the year 2002 at least this amount of funding
would be expended for the EQIP program. The Forum is very dismayed as
this committee acted to reduce the funding for the current fiscal year
to $174,000,000. This level of funding is not adequate for this most
important nationwide program and the Administration does not believe
that it provides sufficient funds to implement National Priority Areas
as allowed by Congress under FAIRA. The Forum urges that the funding
for EQIP for fiscal year 2001 total $325,000,000.
This last year, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
earmarked funds to use in areas of special interest in the amount of
about $5.3 million. The states added about $2 million in up-front cost-
sharing and local farms, we estimate, contributed about another $2.3
million. The plan for water quality control of the river prepared by
the Forum, adopted by the states, and approved by EPA requires that the
USDA portion of the effort to be funded at $12 million. Hence, there is
a shortfall from the federal side of $6.7 million this last year. State
and local cost-sharing is triggered by the federal appropriation.
Hence, the entire effort is only at about 44 percent of what is needed.
The USDA indicated that a more adequately funded EQIP program would
result in more funds being allocated to the salinity control program.
The Basin states have cost sharing dollars available to participate in
on-farm salinity control efforts in the cost-sharing fashion provided
by the Congress. 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 Forum urges that this committee support the funding of
$325,000,000k from the CCC in fiscal year 2001 for EQIP. The Forum also
requests that this Committee advise the Administration that $12,000,000
of these funds be designated for the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Program.
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 legislated Clean Water Act. Initially, the Secretary of the
Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation were given the lead federal role
by the Congress. 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 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, and to a sister
agency of the Bureau of Reclamation--the Bureau of Land Management.
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 two decades ago, much has
been learned about the impact of salts in the Colorado River system.
The Bureau of Reclamation is now completing 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 federal agencies and Congress to
support the implementation of a program necessary to control the
salinity of the river system. In close cooperation with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 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.
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 1999 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 seven 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 the numeric criteria will be exceeded
and damage from the high salt levels in the water will be 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 by FAIRA 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, with state officials in
Utah, Colorado and Wyoming and with NRCS State Conservationists in
Utah, Colorado and Wyoming, agreed upon a parallel program wherein the
states' cost sharing funds will be used. We are now in the fourth year
of 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 the most
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 the Administration's determination that 19 percent of the EQIP
funds will be used for technical assistance. The Forum urges this
Committee to appropriate adequate funds for these support activities
rather than to direct NRCS to borrow these needed funds from the CCC.
______
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 2001.
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 Incentive 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 the level of appropriations have
been reduced to between $3.4 and $5.1 million which is inadequate to
ensure that water quality standards in the Colorado River, with regards
to salinity can be met. It has been estimated through previous Federal
studies that Colorado River water users in the Lower Basin States'
(Arizona, California, and Nevada) were suffering economic damages
estimated to be in excess of $750 million per year in 1995 due to the
salts in the River system. Most of that damage is occurring in
California. The potential impact of failing to move forward with the
plan of implementation for salinity control would be to permit these
damages in the Lower Basin to reach an estimated $1.25 billion annually
by the year 2015.
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 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 as well as
assist the United States in delivering water of adequate quality to
Mexico in accordance with Minute 242 of the International 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 1.48 million tons of salt loading
from the River by year 2015. To date, only 721,000 tons of salt load
reduction have been achieved. In the Forum's last report entitled 1999
Review, Water Quality Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System
released in June 1999, the Forum found that additional salinity control
measures were necessary to meet the implementation plan that had been
adopted by the seven Colorado River Basin States and approved by the
Environmental Protection Agency. Since implementation of the 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. The Forum identified a
``backlog'' of salinity control measures which stands at 384,000 tons.
This is in addition to future controls designed to lower the River's
salt loading by 372,000 tons by 2015 in order to meet the established
salinity standards. The Forum has presented testimony to Congress
recommending that the salinity control efforts through EQIP be
accelerated to continue to meet the salinity standards through 2015. It
has developed a plan that recommends the removal of at least 87,000
tons per year of salt loading through 2005.
The President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2001 contains
funding of $325 million for implementation of EQIP, up $125 million
from the $200 million Commodity Credit Corporation borrowing authority
provided the Secretary of Agriculture by FAIRA per year. The Colorado
River Board is pleased with the Administration's statement that it
intends to expend $325 million in fiscal year 2001 through EQIP. Of the
amount to be appropriated for EQIP, the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Forum, at its meeting in San Francisco, California, in October
1999, recommended a funding level of $12.0 million for on-farm salinity
control in the Colorado River Basin for fiscal year 2001 to maintain
water quality consistent with the established standards. 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 Colorado River Board
supports the recommendation of the Forum. 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 adequate quality water to Mexico. In order for those
commitments to be honored, it is essential that in fiscal year 2001 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 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 COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Judson M.
Harper. I am Vice President for Research and Information Technology at
Colorado State University, located in Fort Collins, Colorado. I
appreciate this opportunity to submit my testimony for the record of
proceedings on the fiscal year 2001 Department of Agriculture Budget. I
would like to testify in support of the budget request for funds
related to carbon sequestration mitigation strategies and take this
opportunity to inform you of the ongoing work in this field being
conducted by the Consortium on Agricultural Soils Mitigation of
Greenhouse Gases.
The Consortium for Agricultural Soils Mitigation of Greenhouse
Gases (CASMGS) includes Colorado State University, Texas A&M
University, Iowa State University, the University of Nebraska, Kansas
State University, Michigan State University, Montana State University,
The Ohio State University and Battelle-Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory. These institutions have been working individually and
collectively for the past few years in the fields of soil carbon
dynamics, soil-derived greenhouse gases, soil erosion, water quality
and computer modeling, land resource data analysis, agricultural
resource economics and integrated assessment.
The Administration's Budget for the Department of Agriculture
proposes $12 million for conservation technical assistance programs to
develop accurate baseline soil carbon data and to determine the impacts
of federal programs on soil carbon stocks across the country. An
additional $3 million is proposed to fund demonstration and research
pilot projects to test various carbon sequestration mitigation
strategies and monitoring mechanisms. We support these initiatives and
feel prepared to partner with the federal government in reaching its
objectives.
Concern has been mounting about the considerable buildup of carbon
dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. This atmospheric buildup
has been greatly accelerated by industrialization and the burning of
fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas). Crops and other plants remove
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and, following harvest their residue
and roots remain in the soil for long periods. Carbon accumulation in
soils can be greatly improved by various forms of conservation
management, such as no-till and replanting with grasses. This carbon
sequestration occurs because there is less soil disturbance and more
carbon is added to the soil. Corollary benefits of carbon sequestration
are increased soil fertility, reductions in erosion and increases in
soil quality.
To help reduce carbon dioxide emissions, a new plan is emerging--
sequester carbon in U.S. agricultural soils, which helps the soil and
air and benefits the U.S. agricultural economy. It has been estimated
that 20-40 percent of targeted emission reductions can be met by
agricultural soil carbon sequestration. Under a private emission
trading strategy, U.S. farmers, practicing appropriate conservation
practices, could sell carbon ``credits'' to carbon emitters.
Alternatively, government policies might be implemented to directly
support farmers for implementing conservation management practices.
Either strategy would help mitigate carbon dioxide rise while the
needed long-term technical solutions are found for producing clean
energy.
The goal of CASMGS is to provide the tools and information needed
to successfully implement soil carbon sequestration programs intended
to lower the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, while
improving the soil and providing income and incentives to farmers.
Specifically, the Consortium will:
--Produce national inventories of all major greenhouse gas fluxes
from soils.
--Provide measurement and modeling tools for quantifying and
verifying soil carbon sequestration rates to support carbon
dioxide emission credit or trading schemes.
--Provide integrated assessment models to evaluate alternative
national and global economic and policy strategies for carbon
sequestration. These models will provide insights on the
impacts of such programs on crop production potential, food
security and environmental quality.
--Provide a standing capability to meet the short-term needs of
Federal agencies, Congress and the White House, for
information, data and analysis on issues relating to soil
carbon sequestration and soil greenhouse gas emissions.
--Participate in the transfer to and adoption of technology by other
countries for quantifying and verifying carbon sequestration
rates.
--Provide information to each of the stakeholder groups:
policymakers, agricultural sector, energy and transportation
industries, the scientific community and the general public,
through annual and special reports, scientific and trade
journals, popular publications and an internet website.
The work of the Consortium will enhance the capacity to sequester
carbon in agricultural soils and provide time for industry to develop
and implement clean energy technologies. We are hopeful that this
Committee will acknowledge the important role that agricultural lands
play in carbon emissions mitigation, as well as, the unique opportunity
for farmers to earn monetary rewards for sound agricultural practices
that not only sequester carbon, but also improve the quality of the
soil.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COSMETIC, TOILETRY, AND FRAGRANCE ASSOCIATION
The Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA) \1\
appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony regarding the fiscal
year 2001 budget request for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
and, in particular, to support an increase in funding for the Center
for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) and its Office of
Cosmetics and Colors. The Administration's budget proposal maintains
the funding for the Office of Cosmetics and Colors at the fiscal year
2000 level of approximately $5.2 million. We are concerned that this
continuation of current funding will have the effect of reducing the
office's resources because inflationary and mandatory salary increases
are not funded. We believe funding this office sufficiently to cover
those automatic expenses is essential to preserve the integrity of this
regulatory program, which ensures consumer confidence in the safety of
cosmetic products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CTFA is the national trade association representing the
cosmetic and personal care product industry. Founded in 1894, CTFA has
an active membership of almost 300 companies, which manufacture or
distribute the vast majority of the finished cosmetic and personal care
products marketed in the U.S. The Association also has approximately
300 associate members, which provide services, equipment, or supplies,
such as raw materials and packaging components, to our active members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTFA member companies provide consumers with a wide array of safe
cosmetic products, including makeup preparations, shampoos, deodorants,
toothpastes, mouthwashes, perfumes, shaving creams, and skin lotions.
These products promote personal hygiene, as well as helping people look
and feel good. Virtually everyone in the U.S. uses cosmetic products on
a regular basis. Thanks to the safety programs of the cosmetic
industry, often with the cooperation and participation of the FDA, and
the effectiveness of FDA's cosmetic-related activities, everyone can be
confident that the products they use routinely are safe. The continued
appropriate funding of the Office of Cosmetics and Colors is essential
to maintain this level of assurance for this industry and our
consumers.
A strong FDA cosmetics regulatory program is critically important
for the continuing economic success of the $25 billion cosmetic and
personal care industry. Our industry counts on the FDA compliance
function to deter the entry into the market of unscrupulous
organizations, as well as to ensure that questionable products are
quickly removed from the market. A vital FDA program maintains a level
playing field for all companies in the marketplace, and for all
products. An efficient program allows members of our industry to know
what the regulatory requirements are, how they will apply, and that
they will be enforced consistently, regardless of whether products are
produced domestically or imported into the U.S.
The Office of Cosmetics and Colors has been, and remains, a
national leader in setting and maintaining standards for the safety of
cosmetic products and for their proper labeling. This national
leadership means that consumers throughout the nation can trust that
their safety is protected, regardless of where they purchase products.
The effective functioning of the Office is essential so that States are
encouraged to adopt national standards rather than setting individual,
differing state requirements. The resulting patchwork of regulatory
requirements would not only confuse consumers but also create
impossible difficulties for an industry conducting business in
interstate commerce.
The FDA also is recognized internationally as expert in cosmetic
regulation, largely as a result of the effective functioning of the
Office of Cosmetics and Colors. FDA's international leadership is
necessary so that we, along with other industries, can continue to move
toward the goal of international harmonization. This was identified by
Congress as a priority for FDA in Section 410 of the FDA Modernization
Act of 1997.
Finally, in addition to supporting sufficient and stable funding
for the office of Cosmetics and Colors, we also wish to take this
opportunity to express support for two specific initiatives for which
the Administration has requested additional funding in fiscal year
2001. First, the Administration requests $5 million for costs
associated with the move of CFSAN to new headquarters facilities.
Without these funds, this long anticipated and congressionally
supported move will not be completed successfully. For years, CFSAN has
occupied seriously outmoded facilities and coped with extreme
difficulties in upgrading laboratory, computer, and telecommunications
capacity. The funds requested in this budget will allow implementation
of a much improved system, which will greatly benefit both consumers
and the regulated industry.
Second, the Administration requests $20 million for new laboratory
facilities in Los Angeles. The FDA field laboratory in Los Angeles is
an unsafe workplace, and its equipment and instrumentation are obsolete
and cannot perform the important product analysis and monitoring
functions necessary to continue to ensure product safety. This
laboratory is especially important to FDA's work in preventing the
importation into the U.S. of unsafe foreign-made products. The Los
Angeles facility is a principal laboratory for analysis of imported
cosmetic products, and its effective functioning is critical to our
industry's goal that every cosmetic and personal care product on the
U.S. market meet our high standards, whether the product is made in the
U.S. or imported.
CTFA thanks you for considering our views as you move forward with
your deliberations on the fiscal year 2001 budget. If there is any way
we may be of assistance to you, please call upon us.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION
AND TEACHING
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to provide
testimony in support of the Land Grant University System.
My name is Daniel M. Dooley, Chairman of the Council for
Agricultural Research, Extension and Teaching, commonly called CARET.
CARET is a national group of lay support persons working on behalf of
the Land Grant University System. The CARET group was formed a number
of years ago for the express purpose of enhancing national support and
understanding of the important role played by the Land Grant Colleges
in the food and agricultural production system, as well as the role of
this system in enhancing the quality of life for all citizens of the
nation.
I do not intend to take your time discussing all of the
contributions that the Land Grant System has made to the food and
agricultural production system. I do want you to know, however, that
the Land Grant University System has been an essential ingredient to
the success of American agriculture and the health of the American
public.
Suffice it to say, that the Land Grant University System is very
unique and has been a critical component to the long-term success of
the agricultural community. It has provided technology and education
enabling farmers and ranchers and other stewards of natural resources
in this country to manage their productive resources in a way that is
efficient and yields the greatest and most nutritious quality and
quantity of food in the world. The Land Grant Universities'
contribution to agriculture has had enormous impact upon our economy,
our balance of trade, the quality of our work force and the health and
quality of life of American citizens. Unfortunately, this system is
sometimes taken for granted.
It is now time to make substantial new efforts to the further
research and development of the agriculture and food production system.
This committee must acknowledge the important contributions to be made
by support for Section 401 of the Agricultural Research, Extension and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA). It is imperative that the
committee find a resolution of the dispute which has emerged among your
colleagues in the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, the future
health and well being of the agriculture and food production system and
the consumers it serves, are at risk because of the internal squabbles
about implementation of Section 401. I represent to you that, on behalf
of CARET, resolution of this matter is the highest priority facing you.
Additionally, this testimony is principally to request support for
the fiscal year 2001 budget recommendations of the National Association
of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC) Board on
Agriculture of $1,095,229,000.00. These increases, in addition to
support of Section 401 of the AREERA, are critical to advance the
interests of the agricultural economy in the United States.
CARET and NASULGC do endorse and are pleased with the President's
proposed budget increases for the Cooperative State Research, Education
and Extension Service of the United States Department of Agriculture.
However, we do feel that it is necessary to reallocate some of the
proposed increases and to augment increases in other areas.
The budget recommendations that are being advanced by CARET on
behalf of the Land Grant Universities are the result of a broad number
of stakeholder meetings and receipt of substantial input from those
that benefit from the research and education activities. Specifically,
I want to address a few funding highlights that are recommended by
CARET. It is our recommendation that the following programs be
increased by the amounts noted.
--Base formula funds for research and extension, $50,000,000.00
increase
--National extension priorities (water quality, food safety,
pesticide impact assessment program), $20,000,000.00 increase
--Native American and Hispanic serving institution funding,
$9,000,000.00 increase
--1890 institution facilities improvements, $3,000,000.00 increase
--National research initiative, $30,000,000.00 increase
--Integrated research extension and education, $43,000,000.00
increase
--Extension and research initiatives--(RUPRI, farm safety, grazing
lands), $13,000,000.00 increase
--International Science and Education Grant Program, $8,000,000.00
increase
--Investment in students, $15,000,000.00 increase
Additionally, the CARET recommendations include a number of cross-
cutting issues for fiscal year 2001. The cross-cutting issues include
investing in minority serving colleges, supporting partnerships to
address national issues at the local level, investing in students, and
globalizing Unites States universities.
Targeted issues for fiscal year 2001 include investing in farmers
and ranchers, investing in food safety, investing in nutrition,
investing in the environment, investing in renewable resources,
investing in children, youth and families, and investing in new markets
in quality communities.
The proposed increases in competitive grants will make the research
and education system more responsive to emerging issues that are facing
American agriculture in a rapidly changing and globalizing economic
environment. The augmentation of the competitive grant program is
essential to provide a mechanism which enables major research
institutions to develop technology necessary to compete in this
environment.
It is the belief of CARET that these proposed budget
recommendations will help equip American agriculture for the 21st
century. It will facilitate the maintenance of our competitive edge
throughout the broad range of the production, processing, distribution
and retail system that moves commodities around the world. Further,
CARET believes that these recommendations will enhance the health and
welfare of the American consuming public.
I have attached a copy of the NASULGC Board on Agriculture Budget
Recommendations to this presentation. Thank you very much for the
opportunity to present this testimony in support of appropriations for
the Land Grant University System.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
On behalf of our nearly 400,000 members and supporters nationwide,
Defenders of Wildlife thanks you for the opportunity to submit
testimony on the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill.
Defenders is a national, non-profit organization focused on conserving
wildlife, their habitats and the ecosystems on which they depend.
Consequently, we have a very special interest in the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's natural resource protection programs. These programs
include the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP),
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Wildlife
Habitat Improvement Program (WHIP), and the Farmland Protection Program
(FPP). We also are very interested in the newly proposed Conservation
Security Program (CSP) and its potential beneficial impacts on wildlife
habitat and ecosystem quality.
Although much remains to be done to improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of existing USDA resource conservation programs, we would
like to voice our strong support for the Administration's budget
request of $125 million for the CRP, $65 million for the FPP, $50
million for the WHIP, and $325 million for the EQIP. We also support
the enrollment of an additional 210,000 acres in the WRP program. We
believe that the newly proposed CSP is an exciting opportunity to
combine natural resource and farm income improvement objectives and
that the program should receive the full level of the Administration's
budget request of $600 million.
A major constraint to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of
existing USDA conservation programs is the lack of adequate monitoring
and evaluation of field level projects and their impacts on natural
resource quality, especially native wildlife and their habitats. We
believe that $5 million should be allocated to defining and
implementing a pilot monitoring program(s) over the next two years to
evaluate conservation program impacts toward achieving improved native
wildlife habitat, water and air quality, and soil health. Defining and
implementing a pilot monitoring program(s) would be a cooperative
effort involving the President's Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), the USDA, the Environmental Protection Agency, the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and
the United States Geological Survey, with the CEQ serving as the lead
agency. The experience from this pilot effort would be used to
determine a longer term conservation program monitoring and evaluation
program that would be implemented under new Farm Bill legislation in
2002.
Lastly, effective implementation of USDA conservation programs
requires increased technical assistance at the field level. We
therefore support the Administration's proposed budget increases for
field-level technical assistance for the natural resource conservation
programs that are implemented and administered by the Farm Services
Agency and the Natural Resources Conservation Agency.
On behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, I thank you again for this
opportunity to submit testimony.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
On behalf of our nearly 400,000 members and supporters nationwide,
Defenders of Wildlife thanks you for the opportunity to submit
testimony on the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill.
Defenders is a national, non-profit organization focused on conserving
wildlife, their habitat and the ecosystems on which they depend.
Consequently, we have a very special interest in the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Wildlife Services (WS) program.
The WS program, formerly known as Animal Damage Control, was
created in 1931 at a time when the U.S. sheep industry was at its
zenith with 52 million head nationwide. Consequently, its primary
function became protecting sheep from predators--primarily in the West.
Since that time, the sheep industry--for a number of reasons--has
experienced a nearly 70-year decline. Sheep production is now less than
15 percent of its 1930s level, with the total number of sheep today at
just over 7 million. The 1999 lamb crop of 4.7 million was down 6
percent from 1998 to a new record low and the number of sheep producers
as of January 2000 totaled 66,800, down from 3 percent from 1998 and 8
percent from 1997. Despite the serious decline in the number of sheep
and sheep producers, a change in sheep population distribution and the
emergence of other vertebrate pest threats to agriculture, WS continues
to view the western sheep rancher as its primary ``customer'' and
continues to allocate the bulk of its resources to livestock
protection.
The WS operations budget appears as a single line item in the
budget with seven main program categories to which federal funds can be
allocated: livestock protection, human health and safety, forest/range,
aquaculture, property, crops and natural resources. Figures 1 and 2
indicate how WS allocated its fiscal year 1998 direct federal
appropriation by program category in each state. From this information
it is clear that livestock protection receives a disproportionate share
(46.3 percent) of the total operations budget while the 6 remaining
program categories collectively share the remaining 54.7 percent. Of
the amount spent on livestock protection, 95.1 percent was spent within
the 17 western states.
By continuing to fund the livestock protection program at such
disproportionate levels, WS ignores those with greater needs, such as
non-western livestock producers. For example, Iowa ranks 10th in the
nation for sheep production with 265,000 head, yet only received $2,625
in federal livestock protection money for fiscal year 1998, resulting
in a cost per head of just one cent. A much different scenario exists
in the West. Contrasted with Nevada, which has only one-third the
number of sheep that Iowa does, this western state receives 7.1 percent
of the direct federal dollars that WS dedicates to livestock
protection, resulting in a per head cost of $7.57. And if we assume, as
studies suggest, that on average only 10 percent of ranchers utilize
WS, that means 35 ranchers in Nevada receive a government subsidy of
over $20,000 per year.
A further example of how WS ignores the needs of others faced with
animal damage conflicts is evident when one analyzes WS' human health
and safety program. Although it often touts this to be a major program,
in fiscal year 1997, WS allocated just $1.9 million of its direct
federal appropriation to addressing human health and safety needs for
all of the 50 states. The human health and safety program largely
addresses the issue of bird-aircraft strikes at airports. According to
a WS publication, the FAA estimates that birds and animals threaten
human safety and cause $200 million in damage each year to aircraft in
the U.S. Indirect costs, such as flight delays, aircraft changes, and
loss of revenues add immeasurably to direct costs. Contrast these
figures with the direct federal funds allocated to Idaho and Montana
for livestock protection: $906,103 and $824,681 respectively, for
livestock damages that reportedly totaled just $2.5 million. Overall,
in fiscal year 1997 (the last year for which WS collected information
pertaining to the reported value of resources damaged) WS spent $9.8
million in response to the reported $7.7 million in livestock-related
damages and spent just $9.5 million to address the more than $63
million in damages reported in the 6 other program categories.
Figures 1 and 2 also demonstrate how skewed the WS program is in
terms of funding levels for eastern programs. Despite the fact that the
31 eastern United States contain 70 percent of the total U.S.
population and that six of the top ten states in agricultural products
sales, less than 27.5 percent of WS' direct federal appropriation is
spent on programs in the East.
Another area where both WS and the Animal and Plant Animal Health
Inspection Service have failed to address much more legitimate animal
damage conflicts is in the control of invasive exotic species. Invasive
exotic species are one of the gravest threats to American agriculture
as well as to a variety of natural ecosystems. Based on data on
agriculture, forestry and public health, it is estimated that invasive
exotic species now cost the nation more than $122 billion per year
(Pimentel et al 1999). About 42 percent of the species on the federal
Threatened or Endangered Species List are considered at risk primarily
because of competition and predation by exotic species and according to
a 1998 study, the affect of exotics on imperiled species is second only
to habitat destruction among major threats to biodiversity. Despite the
magnitude of the threat that invasive species pose to agriculture, WS
currently focuses solely on one invasive species, the brown tree snake
and incredibly, last year when the Administration proposed a $1.8
million across the board reduction in WS' operations budget, WS
proposed eliminating funding of this highly critical program in order
to achieve the reduction. This is even more incredible considering that
the Department of Defense funds the lion's share of the brown tree
snake program.
One exotic species whose control is clearly within the domain of WS
is the nutria, a rodent native to South American that was introduced in
the United States in the late 19th century. An initial population of 20
nutria in Louisiana reached 20 million individuals within 25 years, and
the rodent now has established populations in the coastal and
freshwater marshlands of 15 other states. They have damaged 80,000 of
Louisiana's three million acres of coastal marshlands, resulting in
more than $2.2 billion per year in lost value. Yet despite the
tremendous economic losses resulting from nutria damage, WS spends
virtually nothing on controlling this highly destructive species and
when recently asked to assist with a pilot project at Blackwater
National Wildlife Refuge in Maryland aimed at eradicating nutria from
the area, WS claimed that there were no funds in their budget available
for such assistance.
Clearly, forceful congressional direction is needed to ensure that
WS reassesses how it determines its program priorities in the future.
In order to provide this direction, we urge the Subcommittee to limit
funds for livestock protection to no more than $2.5 million, of which
none can be spent on lethal control, and a redirection of funds toward
programs that deal with the control of exotic species. Federal funds
remaining for livestock protection would be sufficient to allow WS
field personnel to provide technical assistance to ranchers with
depredation problems.
The Subcommittee has received testimony submitted by Mr. James G.
Butler, Chair of the National Wildlife Services Advisory Committee
dated March 1, 2000. Although Mr. Butler's testimony was purportedly
submitted on behalf of the advisory committee, it was neither reviewed
nor approved by the advisory committee, on which a Defenders' employee
resides. Thus, Mr. Butler's testimony speaks only for him, and Congress
should be aware that not only was his testimony on behalf of the
advisory committee ill-advised, but it also potentially violates
federal law. As Mr. Butler is a sheep rancher residing within Texas,
his views of the WS program are markedly different from those of
Defenders and therefore should not be construed to represent Defenders'
opinion. We will be pursuing this matter with WS administrators in the
very near future.
Lastly, we would like to voice our strong support for the
Administration's request for $125 million for the Conservation Reserve
Program, $65 million for the Farmland Protection Program, $50 million
for the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, $325 million for the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program and $600 million for a new
Conservation Security Program. We also support the enrollment of an
additional 210,000 acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program.
On behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, I thank you again for this
opportunity to submit testimony.
______
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 recommend that
funding for the AgrAbility Program be increased to $4.6 million in
fiscal year 2001.
The AgrAbility Program is an essential, unduplicated, hands-on
resource for farmers, ranchers, and farmworkers with disabilities. It
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 2000 appropriation is $3,055,000 (minus a 15 percent
decrease in funds as part of efforts to cut discretionary spending)
which funds 18 state programs.
Disability & Agriculture
Agricultural production is one of the nation's most hazardous
occupations. Each year, approximately 200,000 people working in
agriculture experience injuries that limit 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, approximately 500,000 agricultural
workers have physical disabilities that prevent them from performing
one or more essential farm tasks.
For many of these individuals, the presence of a disability
jeopardizes their rural and agricultural futures. 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 Record of Success
Since 1991, thirty-one states have been served by AgrAbility
projects. AgrAbility currently has:
--Provided direct on-farm assistance to more than 4,700 farmers,
ranchers, and farmworkers with disabilities and their families.
--Provided information and advice to more than 10,000 persons with
disabilities employed in agriculture and related occupations.
--Educated more than 160,000 agricultural, rehabilitation, and rural
health professionals on safely accommodating disability in
agriculture.
--Recruited and trained more than 3,500 volunteers to assist
agricultural producers with disabilities and their families.
--Reached approximately 8.4 million people through 3,800 exhibits,
displays, and demonstrations to increase awareness of the
challenges affecting and resources available to people with
disabilities who work in agriculture.
The AgrAbility Program was established under the 1990 Farm Bill in
response to the needs of farmers 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 demonstration projects and
related national training, technical assistance, and information
dissemination. Easter Seals is proud to be a partner with Purdue
University's Breaking New Ground Program to provide the national
training and technical assistance portion of AgrAbility. Thousands of
people in states with and without state AgrAbility projects are aided
through this initiative.
AgrAbility combines the know-how of Extension Service and national
disability organizations to provide people with disabilities working in
agriculture the specialized services that they need to safely
accommodate their disabilities in everyday farm operations. AgrAbility
received strong bipartisan support during the 1998 reauthorization of
the USDA research and education programs, and was extended through
fiscal year 2004. 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 in offering 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 disabilities.
In 2000, USDA received an allocation from Congress of $3,055,000.
To meet the fiscal 2000 budget agreement of reducing discretionary
spending by .38 percent, the Department reduced the AgrAbility funding
by 15 percent. These funds support eighteen state projects in Colorado,
Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, 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. For example:
--Ron Brown from Edgar, Wisconsin, sought help from AgrAbility
because a 1981 injury that limited the use of his arm and
arthritis in his knees was making it increasingly difficult to
accomplish the chores on his 40 to 50 head dairy farm.
AgrAbility staff worked with Ron and enlisted the help of the
state Division of Vocational Rehabilitation to create solutions
to allow Ron to stay active in farming. AgrAbility staff
recommended new types of equipment to minimize the stress on
Ron's knees and arm. A John Deere ``Gator'' utility vehicle
allows Ron to get around the farm easily, helping him herd
cows, fix fences and do other chores. Ron did some of the
modification work himself. The added extra steps and handrails
he added to his tractors allow him to get on and off more
easily and safely. Ron says that the partnership has helped
make farming ``a little better, and easier to do.'' Ron now
travels the state supporting other farmers with disabilities.
--Rodney Lane of Harrison Valley, Pennsylvania has operated a farm in
the Harrison Valley since 1979. He has a dairy herd and over
500 acres of crops. He lost his left arm below the elbow and
part of three fingers on his right hand in a corn picker
accident. He uses a prosthesis on his left arm when tending his
cows. AgrAbility for Pennsylvanians worked with Vocational
Rehabilitation to acquire a mixed ration wagon that eliminates
the need for multiple trips to and from the grain bin and
reduces the need for heavy lifting. Rodney has this to say
about his modification, ``Assistive technology has made things
easier so that I can farm more self-sufficiently.''
--Darwin Hoffmeister of Ackley, Iowa, lost four fingers and the use
of his left arm in a combine accident five years ago. Although
plenty of offers to take over his soybean and livestock
operation came in after his accident, Darwin wanted to continue
in farming. AgrAbility worked with him to change the ladder on
his combine, put guardrails on his grain bin and provide him
with adapted tools such as a magnetic hammer that allows for
one-handed operation. In his own words, ``farming is all I've
ever done, and I wanted to prove that I could still do it.''
--Louis Jones of Biddle, Kentucky, worked for Clarklands
Thouroughbreds, a breeding farm, mowing lawns, grooming horses,
and performing maintenance. After a spinal cord injury, he
contacted AgrAbility staff who helped him explore the
possibilities of starting a lawn care business. With
AgrAbility's assistance, Louis found the right equipment and
funding to start his new company. AgrAbility staff worked with
Louis to modify equipment so he can access and maintain all of
it. The horse farm where Louis worked will become one of his
new clients.
Impact of Current Funding Levels
In the 1990 Farm Bill, a funding floor of $150,000 per state was
set to assure that the state programs were successfully implemented.
However, because funding has not approached the $6 million authorized
level, state projects have been funded at only $85,000 per state. In
the 1998 reauthorization of the USDA research and education programs,
the Committee reaffirmed a commitment to that $150,000 per state floor.
Easter Seals strongly supports full funding of state programs to assure
that they continue to be effective for farmers with disabilities.
Without a concurrent increase in appropriations, fully funding state
projects at $150,000 per state would result in a loss of almost half of
the existing AgrAbility projects. The fiscal 2001 request of $4.6
million would bring all current states up to the $150,000 level and
would allow eight currently unserved states to implement AgrAbility
programs.
AgrAbility projects are underfunded relative to need and objective.
At $85,000 per state, only a few staff can be hired to provide state-
wide 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. The
15 percent rescission for fiscal 2000 has added to the stress faced by
staff. State AgrAbility projects were asked to develop work plans for
2000 based on the original appropriation of $3,055,000, only to be
asked to revise and resubmit them to accommodate the 15 percent
rescission. Easter Seals fears that failure to invest adequately in
this worthwhile program will ultimately cause it to falter.
One of the consequences of limited funding is that in every grant
cycle, some states that have existing AgrAbility programs, and can
demonstrate a legitimate need for services, are not renewed and forced
to discontinue services to farmers with disabilities in that state and
often have difficulty getting the access to the limited state and
private funding sources that the federal seed money granted them. More
than a dozen states have sought AgrAbility funding without success.
Other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, South
Carolina, and Vermont, had USDA-funded AgrAbility projects in the past
and seek to re-establish their programs. Each of these states can
demonstrate significant unmet needs among farm and ranch families
affected by disability that AgrAbility could potentially address. In
the 1998-1999 grant cycle, projects in Ohio, New York, Idaho/Montana,
and New Jersey ceased to receive federal support. The need for the
program in these once-funded states is exemplified by the fact that
last year the technical assistance telephone line operated by
AgrAbility staff at Breaking New Ground Resource Center at Purdue
University logged hundreds of calls for assistance from these nine
states alone. Any loss of programs will greatly affect farmers with
disabilities in states for whom AgrAbility is the primary resource
through which they seek information and assistance.
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 2001 to ensure that this valuable
public-private partnership continues to serve rural Americans with
disabilities and their families. Thank you for considering Easter
Seals' views and recommendations.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FDA-NIH COUNCIL
INTRODUCTION
The FDA-NIH Council appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony
concerning the importance of a sustainable funding base for the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA). This year President Clinton has proposed
an impressive 13 percent increase for the Agency. The Council members
are grateful for the Committee's support of the FDA and consideration
of the Administration's proposal.
The FDA-NIH Council is a coalition of patient advocacy
organizations, academic scientists, health professionals, and research-
based industry organizations. These partners in the process of medical
discovery and innovation have come together as a result of the shared
concern about the complex challenges faced by the FDA in carrying out
its regulatory responsibilities. The Council members recognize that new
advances in research, innovations in technology, and additional
resources for research make demands on the FDA that must be addressed.
There is no question that we are on the threshold of medical
breakthroughs that were unthinkable just five years ago. We have built
a successful discovery process in government, academia, and industry,
attracted some of the best scientific minds, and initiated ground-
breaking programs that have already yielded critical knowledge, and
improved patient care and quality of life. The unprecedented increases
at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have lead to significantly
increased activity at the FDA relative to increased product development
and clinical trials. Without the resources and necessary funding to
support scientific expertise, we limit our ability to rapidly and cost-
effectively translate that research and development into commercial
products for health professionals and consumers. The FDA must be in a
position to respond to the tremendous advances occurring in the public
and private sectors.
Over the past five to eights years the FDA's appropriations have
increased at a steady and minimal rate. However, trends in a wide
variety of external factors have generated workloads and public
expectations that are poorly matched with the FDA's capacity to respond
in a timely and adequate manner. The Agency's growing responsibilities
include Biotech alliances, direct-to-consumer prescription drug
advertisement, new drug and biotech patents, food imports to the United
States, transgenic crops, and Internet pharmacies, not to mention
dietary supplements and generic drug approvals.
While an increasing proportion of the FDA's workforce is new
product review staff, funded by user fees under the Prescription Drug
User Fee Act (PDUFA), the number of non-user fee funded full-time
equivalent (FTE) positions has declined by more than 800 over the last
eight years, which impacts on the Agency's ability to inspect, monitor,
and address responsibilities outside PDUFA. In addition, FDA's statute
specifies very precise time frames or frequencies for many review and
inspection functions. Because most of these activities are very labor
intensive, and grow over time, the FDA's ability to accomplish this
work is often less than required by the statute.
The FDA-NIH Council supports the FDA's request which focuses on
Assuring Safety through Strengthened Science. In the past twenty years,
expenditures in drug research have increased seven-fold; the drug
discovery process is being driven by major breakthroughs in both
biotechnology and information technology; medical device technology has
shifted from x-rays and CAT scans to also include robotics,
miniaturization, and bio-materials; trade and the standards that guide
it have become increasingly globalized; and consumers' purchasing cues
have shifted from traditional print and electronic media to the
Internet. An increase in the Agency's budget is necessary to bring the
FDA into the 21st century with a strong, focused emphasis on managing
risk, developing science within the Agency, and pursuing leveraging
opportunities with industry and academia.
As a Coalition, we support the accomplishments of the FDA:
Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA).--In the premarket arena, as
a result of PDUFA and the cooperation of the FDA and industry, drugs
are now being reviewed expeditiously, allowing consumers to benefit
from new and innovative safe and effective medical products on the
market more rapidly. The FDA is currently on track to meet or exceed
all performance commitments associated with PDUFA for fiscal year 2000.
Streamlining Premarket Activities.--The FDA has completed several
reinvention efforts to streamline the premarket review process to
accelerate review times for important new medical devices and animal
drugs. These efforts have relied on the collaboration with health
professionals and industry to assure public health and safety before
and after market entry.
FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA).--The Agency has successfully been
implementing FDAMA. The FDAMA Statutory Compliance Plan provides a
strategic blueprint for the FDA's future direction, and identifies the
gap between the Agency's current capacity, and the goals of statutory
requirements and public expectations. Working in collaboration with the
FDA, stakeholders have articulated the need to strengthen the science
and analytical base of the Agency, and the need for improved
communications, including maximizing the availability and clarity of
information for consumers about new products and for industry about
review processes.
The FDA-NIH Council strongly believes that the following items are
essential for fiscal year 2001:
The FDA-NIH Council urges the Committee to do all that is possible
to ensure that the FDA is provided the resources to carry out its
mandates.--We recommend that the Committee support the Administration's
request for $1,391 million, and increase of $176 million over the
fiscal year 2000 enacted level. Program authority at this level would
include the collection of authorized user fees for prescription drugs
($149 million) and mammogram quality screening ($15 million). The
Council, and stakeholders in the research and innovation process--
patients, health providers, researchers, and industry--agree how
successful the user fee program has been in expediting the progress of
research to consumer product.
The FDA-NIH Council recommends the FDA maintain a strong science
base that keeps pace with accelerating technology.--With an explosion
of new technologies, it is imperative the FDA maintain a level of
expertise and remain current in science to fully understand the risks
associated with new products. New mandates and appropriate prohibitions
against resource shifting have eroded the funding for the Centers and
base programs supported by the FDA. The Administration has proposed new
initiatives and mandates without providing the full funding necessary
to maintain the integrity of existing programs in the Agency, which has
the potential to weaken the FDA.
The FDA-NIH Council strongly opposes the unauthorized user fees
proposed by the Administration, as we have consistently in the past.--
User fees should be used to speed and enhance the quality of the review
by the FDA. We oppose the collection of unauthorized user fees for
deficit reduction. Any user fee program should be authorized prior to
implementation. The Council believes that the initiatives proposed by
the Administration should undergo the same Congressional consideration
that was provided to the Prescription Drug User Fee program.
The FDA-NIH Council understands the inherent difficulties in terms
of weighing the available resources and supporting numerous worthy
federal programs in light of the severe budget constraints which
presently exist. However, we strongly believe the functions of the FDA
are too vital to the health and welfare of our citizens and urge your
support for a strong increased appropriation to the Agency.
The FDA-NIH Council thanks the Committee for the opportunity to
submit testimony. We appreciate the support of this Committee.
The members of the FDA-NIH Council are: the A-T's Children Project;
Candlelighters Childhood Cancer Foundation; Allergy and Asthma
Network--Mothers of Asthmatics, Inc.; Alliance for Aging Research;
Schering-Plough Corporation; Albert B. Sabin Vaccine Foundation; Merck
& Co., Inc; Pfizer, Inc.; American Veterinary Medical Association;
Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology; American Society of
Tropical Medicine and Hygiene; American Academy of Pediatrics; National
Multiple Sclerosis Society; Glaxo Wellcome, Inc.; Cystic Fibrosis
Foundation; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Society of Toxicology;
Research Society on Alcoholism; Theracom; Parkinson's Action Network;
Academic Contract Research Organization; American Academy of Allergy,
Asthma and Immunology; Bermuda Biological Station for Research; and the
Cancer Research Foundation of America.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETIES FOR
EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kohl, Members of the Subcommittee: The Federation
of American Societies for Experimental Biology, FASEB, is the largest
organization of life scientists in the United States. Founded in 1912,
FASEB is comprised of 20 societies with a combined membership of more
than 60,000 scientists, including investigators involved in a broad
spectrum of agricultural research. Our member scientists hold positions
at nearly every land grant and private institution engaged in
nutrition-related research in the United States. Many more are pursuing
agricultural questions through industrial and biotechnology activities.
Their research projects span human and animal nutrition, plant science,
animal physiology and reproduction.
Each year, FASEB brings together representatives of our member
societies to review the life science research programs at various
federal agencies. After considerable deliberation and debate, these
scientists produce funding recommendations for each agency examined.
This year's proposals are contained in a report released for this
budget cycle.\1\ It is on behalf of FASEB scientists that testimony to
this subcommittee is submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.
2000. Federal Funding for Biomedical and Related Life Science Research
fiscal year 2001. http://www.faseb.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
University research supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) throughout the country is critical to achieving the agricultural
advances required to feed the world, reduce environmental pollution,
provide safe foods, improve nutrition and enhance the competitive
position of U.S. agriculture in the global marketplace. The USDA
supports basic and applied research through its Research, Education and
Extension (REE) budget and through its intramural research arm, the
Agricultural Research Service. Half of the total REE budget supports
the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
(CSREES), which allocates resources for national and regional
priorities through a variety of funding mechanisms. By providing a
structure for USDA-university partnerships, CSREES sustains the
university-based research and education system that is intrinsic to our
agricultural success. Much of this support is disbursed through
competitive grants programs, ensuring that funds are invested in the
highest quality research projects.
The dramatic rise in the U.S. and world population will
significantly increase the demand for food; greater investment in
agricultural research today is essential to meeting this need in the
future. USDA therefore must be involved in research aimed at creating
environmentally sustainable development, rural medical delivery systems
and improved technology for food processing, contributing to more
effective and cost-efficient health care.\2\ Several programs within
USDA warrant increased support, in order to capitalize on their ability
to address these challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Coalition on Funding Agricultural Research Missions. 1999.
Invest Now for a New Century Bethesda, MD: Co-FARM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRICGP)
The National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program
(NRICGP) provides important scientific underpinnings to meet the
pressing need for a safe and nutritious food supply. This competitive
and highly productive merit-reviewed research program supports projects
that lead to improved understanding as well as direct applications to
enhance agricultural productivity, environmental quality and optimal
human nutrition and food safety. Its vitality is crucial to the future
of U.S. agriculture.
Recent NRICGP-sponsored advances include:
--Improved understanding of the biochemical and genetic basis for
plant resistance to cold, drought and salinity, providing the
potential for the development of improved varieties of
agricultural crops.
--Improved understanding of virulence mechanisms of plant pathogens.
--Enhanced understanding of the mechanism of bovine fertilization and
early hormonal interactions between mother and fetus will lead
to improved reproduction of livestock.
--Further understanding of the role of soybean lectin gene in plant
development, which has direct applications to insect resistance
and human nutrition.
--Improved understanding of the genetic regulation of oil production
in plant seeds, which has direct application to the production
of oils with improved industrial functionality as well as for
production of oils with improved nutritional quality for human
and animal consumption.
--Improved methods for detection of naturally occurring seafood
toxins.
--New strategies for elimination of Salmonella from chickens.
--New insight into the role of dietary fat in regulating metabolism.
--New techniques using nonradioactive tracers to assess nutrient
requirements based on rates of metabolic processes.
--Improved understanding of the metabolic basis for nutritional
requirements at critical stages of development including
pregnancy and infancy.
--The above examples represent only a subset of the NRICGP research
portfolio. One of the strengths of this program is its breadth
and consequent ability to maximize research contributions
across areas of agricultural need.
However, despite the potential for further advancement, the USDA
research budget has actually decreased in constant dollars by nine
percent in the last five years. In 1998, for example, only 25 percent
of the qualified grant proposals were funded. As a result, high-quality
projects were turned down, discouraging the nation's best scientists
with the most meritorious ideas from competing for USDA funding. And,
even at this modest funding level, the awarded budgets were reduced by
an average of 30 percent. Consequently, the research capacity of the
NRICGP program is underutilized and an effective competitive grants
program is impeded. In accordance with this position, it is important
to note that the number of applications received in fiscal year 1999
increased by 157 over fiscal year 1998 following an increased
appropriation to the program's budget.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Research Initiative
Competitive Grants Program Annual Reports, fiscal year 1994 through
fiscal year 1999 and personal communication, Sally Rockey, Deputy
Administrator, Competitive Research Grants and Awards Management,
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inadequate support limits both the number and the productivity of
researchers that the NRICGP is able to fund. NRICGP awards are small,
averaging about $60,000 per year, and have a short duration, averaging
2.3 years. Researchers must therefore limit the scope of their work or
spend valuable time writing additional grant proposals. Moreover, a
congressionally mandated cap on indirect (facilities and
administrative) costs for NRICGP grants deters many capable
investigators from even seeking NRI grants. The 19 percent cap on these
costs does not cover the real expenses associated with the research.
These factors have led to more than a 20 percent reduction in proposals
submitted since 1994.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to relieving the administrative constraints on NRICGP-
sponsored research, support for areas of great opportunity should be
augmented, including animal, plant and microbial genomes; improving
human nutrition for optimal health; food safety; plant biochemistry;
decreasing the environmental impact of animal pollutants; integrated
agricultural systems; and infrastructure building. Funds now available
for these areas of critical research are insufficient to allow them to
reach their full potential.
Therefore, FASEB recommends:
--an appropriation of $203 million in fiscal year 2001 for base
funding of NRICGP. This would represent a first step toward the
goal of attaining the originally authorized $500 million for a
program that has been chronically under-funded since its
inception. This increase should not come at the expense of
other CSREES programs.
--efforts be made within NRI to fund grants at the lengths and
amounts recommended by peer-review panels. FASEB further urges
Congress to increase the 19 percent cap on indirect (facilities
and administrative) costs for NRI grants.
--maintaining the NRI process for enhancing the funding of new
investigators and encourages the NRI to expand the number of
these awards.
--continuing the policy of using funds from the NRI program to
support young investigators for the President's Early Career
Award for Scientists and Engineers.
--USDA and NRI continue their successful collaboration with other
federal agencies on issues such as the Plant Genome Project and
the Food Safety Institute.
Finally, FASEB applauds Congress for implementing increased
accountability of formula-funded research programs and for directing 25
percent of funding into multi-disciplinary research and 25 percent into
multi-state projects.
Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems
A second issue that FASEB recommends Congress pursue is the
expenditure of funds for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food
Systems (henceforth referred to as `the Initiative'). Two years ago,
Congress authorized the Initiative to fund competitively awarded
research grants to support large, multi-disciplinary, multi-center
programs beyond the scope of the NRI. The program includes merit review
and priority-setting provisions involving the relevant stakeholder
groups.
Within the Initiative, FASEB recommends the creation of a new
agricultural genomics program. The power and long-term impact of a
large-scale genome initiative directed toward agriculturally important
organisms represents a major opportunity and fulfills an important need
in agriculture. The most efficient means to establish these new genomic
databases is to integrate bioinformatics with large-scale sequencing
efforts through the comparative mapping of genes in related organisms.
NRICGP is well positioned to then support the resulting database
research and to address problems presented in agriculturally
significant organisms. FASEB further recommends that this program be
coordinated with other USDA activities and with those at NSF, DOE, NIH
and the private sector.
Similarly, FASEB recommends the initiation of an agricultural
biotechnology/risk assessment program, within the Initiative, as food
technology and nutrition and agricultural biotechnology are priority
mission areas. USDA is the logical agency to provide leadership and
research support for risk assessment to both consumers and the
environment relative to genetically modified food products. Areas of
emphasis should include identifying protective components of foods that
reduce the risk of chronic diseases, investigating how individuals of
varying genetic backgrounds respond to different intakes of those food
components, bio-engineering of foods to provide increased amounts of
nutrients or other components that are important to health and testing
the effectiveness and safety of those modifications in animals and
humans. Additionally, links between various food components and
diseases such as cancer continue to be uncovered, including over 600
plant-derived chemicals with chemopreventive properties, such as
antioxidants. Ultimately, as there are many basic questions left
unanswered on the role of diet in health and disease, we will want to
know what compositional changes in plants and animals provide the best
nutritional value.
--FASEB endorses the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food
Systems and recommends full funding of $120 million in fiscal
year 2001.
Higher Education
Encouraging and educating the next generation of agricultural
scientists is a fundamental prerequisite to sustaining our capability
and success in agricultural research. The National Needs Graduate
Fellowship Grants Program (NNFG) contributes to the training of
outstanding researchers who can interact effectively with agricultural
producers and consumers. Despite its importance, funding for the NNFG
declined from $5 million in fiscal year 1996 to $3 million in fiscal
year 1997 where it has remained.
--FASEB recommends that funding for the National Needs Fellowship
Grants be restored to its previous level of $5 million in
fiscal year 2001.
In addition to the NNFG, the USDA supports innovation in teaching
methods and materials through the Institution Challenge Grants program.
The critical need to recruit and train the next generation of
agriculture researchers necessitates that these two programs be
supported at levels sufficient for them to accomplish their goals
effectively.
--FASEB recommends that the Institution Challenge Grants be
maintained at $4.35 million in fiscal year 2001.
Use of Animals in Research
Research using animals has been crucial to most of the major
medical advances of the past century. Reasonable guidelines concerning
how animals are used in research provide safeguards and ensure public
confidence. USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
is charged by Congress with enforcing provisions of the Animal Welfare
Act, and FASEB commends the USDA for its diligent enforcement efforts.
--FASEB recommends that Congress provide the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service with continued support for Animal Welfare
Act enforcement in fiscal year 2001.
In conclusion, agricultural research is crucial to sustaining the
productivity of our farmers and livestock breeders, as well as to
maintaining consumer confidence in the safety and nutritional value of
American foods. As agricultural scientists address the challenges and
opportunities in this new century, it is important that USDA programs
have the resource capacity to support their progress. The growth and
enhancement of the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants
Program, the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems and
increased support for the training of the next generation of
agricultural scientists is therefore fundamental to ensuring that we
are able to provide for our future needs.
______
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 before this
Committee. I would like to take a moment to briefly acquaint you with
Florida State University.
Florida State University is a comprehensive Research I university
with a liberal arts base. The University's primary role is to serve as
a center for advanced graduate and professional studies while
emphasizing research and providing excellence in undergraduate
programs. Faculty at FSU have been selected for their commitment to
excellence in teaching, for their abilities to perform research and
creative activities, and for their commitment to public service. Among
the faculty are numerous recipients of national and international
honors, including four Nobel laureates and eight members of the
National Academy of Sciences. Our scientists and engineers do excellent
research, and often they work closely with industry to commercialize
the results of their research. Florida State ranks third this year
among all U.S. universities in revenues generated from its patents and
licenses, trailing only Columbia University and the entire University
of California system. Having been designated as a Carnegie Research I
University several years ago, Florida State University currently
exceeds $100 million per year in research expenditures. With no
agricultural or medical school, few institutions can match our success.
Florida State attracts 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
in its student body, which currently includes some 192 National Merit
and National Achievement scholars, as well as students with superior
creative talent. We consistently rank in the top 25 among U.S. colleges
and universities in attracting National Merit Scholars.
At 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 involving the development of sustainable marine aquaculture
systems and sustainable marine aquaculture opportunities through
distance learning.
The opportunity for the U.S. marine aquaculture industry to meet
the increasing demand for seafood has never been greater than it is
today. The majority of the world's marine aquaculture production takes
place in coastal ponds or sea cages. In the U.S., aquaculture industry
development has been inhibited by the high cost and limited
availability of coastal lands, high production costs, restricted
growing season and governmental regulations. In order for U.S. marine
aquaculture production to expand and develop, innovative approaches to
address the constraints being faced by the emerging aquaculture
industry must be found.
Florida State University (FSU) and Harbor Branch Oceanographic
Institution (HBOI) have formed a collaboration to design and develop
improved energy and filtration treatment technologies for marine
aquaculture. Expanding marine aquaculture opportunities to inland sites
using species that can be adapted to freshwater, designing low-cost
filtration systems for high density production, and designing low-cost
energy efficient recirculating systems will provide solutions to
several of the production and regulatory constraints faced by U.S.
producers. If progress is made in these areas, there will be an
increased opportunity for marine aquaculture to develop and expand.
There is an increasing global awareness of the need for sustainable
marine aquaculture development. By the year 2025, global population is
projected to be nearly 8.5 billion people, with a projected demand for
seafood of 120 million metric tons (MMT). Seafood fisheries reached
carrying capacity more than ten years ago with a capture of 60 MMT, but
demand for seafood has shown no signs of abating. The United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported that by 1995, marine
aquaculture accounted for only 26 percent of the total world harvest of
food fish. In 1997, U.S. seafood imports increased both in volume and
value, with shrimp topping the list at 278,600 metric tons valued at
$2.7 billion. Shrimp imports continue to be the second largest
contributor to the U.S. trade deficit, and it is expected that finfish
imports will follow the same scenario. There remains a great need for
U.S. marine aquaculture production to fill this void and relieve some
of the harvest pressure on natural stocks.
Competition for access to the now limited U.S. coastal land
resources requires innovative approaches to develop and expand marine
aquaculture into new environments. HBOI has work underway that suggests
many saltwater species thrive in freshwater systems with the
appropriate chemical makeup. Another issue is environmental protection
of coastal waters and biosecurity to protect both wild and farmed
aquatic resources from disease and exotic introductions, which
necessitates the development of cost effective recirculating production
systems. In many locations around the U.S., regulatory constraints
already require the use of recirculating marine aquaculture systems.
HBOI has designed an intensive recirculating, production system to
culture marine finfish species in fresh or brackish water. The first
component of this effort will involve the teaming of FSU's Department
of Oceanography, the FSU/FAMU College of Engineering and HBOI to
conduct parallel experiments to determine the optimal production
parameters using hard freshwater in Florida. FSU's research on solar
technologies will be utilized to design low-cost energy efficient
recirculating systems for this effort as well. All of this work will
expand U.S. marine aquaculture production of saltwater species into new
locales, result in better utilization of land resources and reduce the
demand for imported aquaculture products.
The second component of this collaborative effort will involve a
continuation of the program initiated in fiscal year 2000 to facilitate
cooperative research, education and public outreach programs focused on
marine aquaculture. Educational materials are being developed for an
outreach training program in the field of marine aquaculture through
the use of distance learning technologies with funding provided in
fiscal year 2000. We are requesting continued funding to develop
aquaculture education and training programs and expand the program to
reach new rural communities throughout Florida.
A number of other marine aquaculture business opportunities exist
for rural communities throughout Florida, but their implementation
requires that the training and technical support be provided in the
home community. Through a combination of distance learning technology
and satellite education and support hubs, we will provide marine
aquaculture training, technical support and appropriate economic
information to rural communities throughout Florida. As materials are
being developed in the project, FSU and HBOI will work together with
the local community colleges, economic development officials and
extension specialists to develop a comprehensive dissemination network
for this information.
The two collaborating institutions are seeking an appropriation of
$1.97 million in fiscal year 2001 to support the development of
sustainable marine aquaculture systems. This effort includes a request
of $1.5 million from the USDA Agricultural Research Service to initiate
the research component of this project, and the balance of $470,000 to
continue the distance education and training program from the USDA
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service.
Mr. Chairman, this is just one of many exciting activities going on
at Florida State University that will make important contributions
toward solving problems our nation faces today. Your support would be
appreciated, and, again, thank you for the opportunity to present these
views for your consideration.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FRIENDS OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH-BELTSVILLE,
INC.
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to present our statement supporting the Administration's
funding request for the Department of Agriculture's Agricultural
Research Service (ARS), and especially for the Agency's flagship
research facility in Maryland, the Beltsville Agricultural Research
Center (BARC). Our organization--the Friends of Agricultural Research-
Beltsville--is dedicated to supporting and promoting the Center's
agricultural research, outreach, and educational missions.
Mr. Chairman, public investments in agricultural research yield
astonishing returns to American taxpayers. As the 20th Century dawned,
an American farm produced only enough food for its residents and a
handful of others. Yet a new USDA report, without factoring in our huge
agricultural exports, notes that today American farms with $10,000-plus
in sales each produce enough food annually for 258 Americans. This
astonishing success story traces directly to public research and
outreach programs such as those of the Beltsville Agricultural Research
Center, the world's most comprehensive agricultural research facility.
Highly regarded economists W.E. Huffman and R.E. Evenson have
estimated the annual return on agricultural research to be between 135
and 170 per cent. Virginia Tech's George W. Norton puts the return on
research in a long-term perspective. He notes that research may take
several years to produce economic returns, but then it pays-off for a
long, long time. Over a 15 to 20 year period, he estimates roughly a $5
return for each research dollar spent.
Mr. Chairman, we would like to focus the remainder of our statement
on three vitally important areas. All urgently need support. Without
indicating priority order, we will discuss: Invasive Species; the Human
Nutrition Research Initiative; and Modernization of the Beltsville
Human Nutrition Research Center, Phase Two.
Invasive Species.--Invasive weeds--such as purple loosestrife,
leafy spruge, Canada thistle, salt cedar, water hyacinth, and
malaleuca--infest over 100 million acres in the United States at an
estimated annual cost of $36 billion in reduced crops, $2 billion in
reduced range yields, and $100 million in aquatic weed control.
Infested acreage is growing by 8 to 20 percent annually. Approximately
half of our endangered and threatened plants are at risk to invasive
species.
Invasive arthropods--insects such as whiteflies and the Russian
wheat aphid--destroy $14 billion worth of crops annually. The losses of
mature hardwood and landscape trees to the Asian Longhorn Beetle are
incalculable. Livestock and poultry producers must also contend with
the threat of invasive arthropods. Records of introduced species that
have plagued U.S. livestock include the stable fly, face fly, horn fly,
sheep bot fly, northern cattle grub, common cattle grub, and sheep ked.
An enormous number of nonindigenous insects, ticks, and mites that
affect animals present the potential for becoming introduced and
established in the United States. Losses to lawn and garden pests
annually cost Americans another $1.5 billion.
Beltsville scientists have pioneered applied and fundamental
research in the detection and identification of invasive plants,
insects, and pathogens as well chemical and biological control. The
fiscal year 2001 budget proposes increased funding for invasive species
research. We applaud this, for much basic and applied work remains to
be done. Beltsville research in this vital area is underfunded, and at
risk to losing its critical mass of highly qualified scientific
expertise.
Human Nutrition Research Initiative.--Beltsville maintains several
work areas that are fundamental to the mission of the Agricultural
Research Service, indeed to the Department of Agriculture. They are, in
a word, mission-critical. Yet, they are underfunded.
One area is the National Nutrient Database. This database contains
vital information on the vitamin, mineral, and other nutrient content
of U.S. foods. It is the foundation for food consumption tables used
throughout the world. Closer to home, it supports the food consumption
survey as well as the evaluation of such programs as Women, Infants,
and Children (WIC) and school lunches. Moreover, it is the basis for
most of the food-labeling content done by industry. Over time, the
database has become outdated, failing to keep up with food processing
changes, new foods, even new cuts of meat. Adequate funding is needed
both to bring the database up-to-date and to maintain it. The closely
related Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals needs support
to improve its methodology and validation techniques.
Another area is the Food Composition Laboratory. This unit develops
new analytical methods to measure food nutrient content--methods that
are used widely by industry. These data go into the National Nutrient
Database. We need better methods for measuring phytonutrients--a large
complex group of food compounds, such as antioxidants and others--that
have beneficial health effects. These complex compounds are hard to
measure, and we urgently need to perfect simple, rapid, and accurate
methods for accomplishing this.
A third area is Beltsville's exciting new research emphasis on
Nutrition and Immunity--the relationship between nutritional status and
disease immunity. A Beltsville scientist has shown that a person's
nutritional status can affect whether a virus causes disease in that
person. Beltsville also needs support to investigate mucosal (lining of
the digestive tract) immunity. Beltsville plans to create and operate
the only nationwide research program relating human nutrition to
mucosal immunity.
Modernization of the Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center.--
We could hardly over-emphasize the importance of funding for the second
phase for modernizing the Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center.
Congress appropriated Phase One funds in the fiscal year 2000 budget.
Planning is on schedule to begin construction, and if everything goes
as intended, there will be a groundbreaking in the fall. We need to
keep momentum for this vital work going forward. Thus, Mr. Chairman, we
strongly recommend approval of Phase Two funding as proposed in the
Administration's budget.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes our statement. We again thank you and
Members of the Subcommittee for your support and for the opportunity to
present our testimony.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRIENDS OF THE NATIONAL ARBORETUM
Chairman Cochran and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony in support of the U.S. National
Arboretum on behalf of Friends of U.S. National Arboretum (FONA).
The President's budget contains a request for an increase of
$3,330,000 for the U.S. National Arboretum consisting of $2.8 million
to automate and replace lateral irrigation lines and $530,000 for
modernization of the existing heating, ventilating and air conditioning
(HVAC) system in the current administration building. These are
necessary core maintenance and improvement items, vital to the
Arboretum and its 446 acres of plantings. The request is certainly
supported by FONA.
These necessary maintenance items do not, however, address the need
to advance the statutory educational function of the Arboretum and make
it more visitor friendly through implementation of the new Master Plan,
nor do they address the increased staffing needs of the Arboretum as
hundreds of new visitors each year discover the wonders of this
national treasure.
For fiscal year 2001, FONA respectfully requests $110,000 for
planning and design of the new Education and Visitors Center at the
U.S. National Arboretum and $3,000,000 for planning, design and
construction of a new entrance off Bladensburg Road and the attendant
widening and storm water control for existing roads at the National
Arboretum. Both of these requests are consistent with the new Master
Plan for the U.S. National Arboretum and compatible with funding
requests by the U.S. National Arboretum.
Thanks to your Committee, and after some years of preparation, the
schematic for the new Master Plan is now complete and the U.S. National
Arboretum is poised to move into the twenty-first century and enhance
its mission of horticultural education mandated by Congress.
The new Master Plan proposes, among other things, a new entrance to
the National Arboretum off Bladensburg Road. The District of Columbia
is currently preparing to rehabilitate Bladensburg Road with funds
provided by Congress in TEA-21 and it is critical that the new entrance
from Bladensburg Road into the Arboretum be coordinated with this
project. The Department of Public Works of the District of Columbia has
been very cooperative, and the $3 Million requested coupled with the
$500,000 provided in fiscal year 2000 for engineering and design, would
provide the funds the Arboretum estimates as necessary. Creation of the
new entrance will also require widening of existing roads and provision
for storm water management.
The $110,000 request is for initial planning for the new Education
and Visitors Center which is key to the core area of the Master Plan.
This enhanced core area is the central feature making the U.S. National
Arboretum a more attractive facility for visitors and enhancing its
potential for horticultural education. Significant private funds are
available to initiate a flowering tree walk which would tie together
the various collections in the core area. The new Education and
Visitors Center also presents other significant opportunities for
private funding.
The foregoing requests for funds are also consistent with requests
made by Representatives Bereuter, Goss, Petri, Dooley and Frelinghuysen
to Secretary Glickman for fiscal year 2001 funding. We urge you to
include this funding for fiscal year 2001 to enhance the U.S. National
Arboretum's singular role as a source of horticultural education and as
a national showcase for advances in horticulture.
FONA realizes that an enhanced U.S. National Arboretum envisioned
by the Master Plan will require additional staff support. Already the
Arboretum is attracting new visitors every year, placing a strain on
the limited staff in place; there are now close to 7000 visitors for
every one staff person. FONA is prepared to support additional staffing
requested by the Arboretum and the Department of Agriculture to meet
increased usage and visitation.
In an era when horticulture is the fastest growing segment of the
agricultural industry, and public interest in horticulture and
gardening is at an all time high, making the U.S. National Arboretum a
renowned attraction for horticultural education--a ``horticultural
Smithsonian''--is well worth the effort and the investment.
Thank you for your continued support of the national treasure that
is our U.S. National Arboretum.
______
PREPARED JOINT STATEMENT OF THE GENERIC PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURERS, AND
NATIONAL PHARMACEUTICAL ALLIANCE
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the Generic
Pharmaceutical Industry Association (GPIA), National Association of
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers (NAPM), and National Pharmaceutical
Alliance (NPA) are pleased to have the opportunity to present these
joint comments on the fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA). As part of a coalition of FDA-regulated
industries, we support the Administration's requested 13 percent
increase in funding for fiscal year 2001. A letter expressing the
coalition's support, which was sent recently to this Subcommittee, is
attached to our testimony.
As we begin the new millennium, it is imperative that this
Subcommittee ensure that American consumers have continued access to
safe, effective, and affordable pharmaceutical products. Promoting the
availability of cost-effective drugs is the top priority for our
members. GPIA, NAPM, and NPA are the three national trade associations
representing manufacturers and distributors of finished multi-source
generic pharmaceuticals, manufacturers and distributors of bulk active
pharmaceutical chemicals, and suppliers of other goods and services to
the generic drug industry. The associations' combined membership
encompasses virtually the entire U.S. generic pharmaceutical industry.
generic drugs continue to provide significant health care cost savings
The generic drug industry addresses this Subcommittee with one
voice to support FDA's Office of Generic Drugs (OGD) and request that
$1.5 million in additional appropriations be allocated to OGD. This
appropriation is critical to shore up OGD's work of reviewing and
approving generic drug applications, called abbreviated new drug
applications (ANDAs).
Generic drugs continue to represent one of the most effective means
of controlling healthcare costs in the U.S. Generic drug competition
has saved the American consumer, taxpayer, and Federal and state
governments billions of dollars since passage of the Hatch-Waxman Act
in 1984. According to a July 1998 Congressional Budget Office study,
consumers who bought generic drugs at retail pharmacies saved $8-$10
billion in 1994 alone.\1\ Since the federal health program spends one
out of every five health care dollars on prescription medicine,\2\
lower-priced generic drugs save the U.S. government untold billions as
well.\3\ These savings are possible because generic drugs typically
enter the market at 25-30 percent below the brand price and, within two
years, decline to 60-70 percent of the brand price.\4\ Access to this
price discount is important for taxpayers and consumers, but is crucial
for those seniors and the uninsured who have difficulty meeting their
health care needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CBO Report, ``How Increased Competition from Generic Drugs has
Affected Prices and Returns in the Pharmaceutical Industry'' (July
1998), at Summary.
\2\ Joseph McCafferty, Critical Condition, CFO, The Magazine for
Senior Financial Executives, Jan. 1999, at 63.
\3\ FDA recognizes that generic drugs provide ``substantial
savings'' to the Medicare and Medicaid programs in its Appropriations
documents. HHS fiscal year 2001 Performance Plan, Fiscal Year 2000
Final Performance Plan, and Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Report for
FDA, at 64.
\4\ CBO Report, ``How Increased Competition from Generic Drugs has
Affected Prices and Returns in the Pharmaceutical Industry'' (July
1998), at Summary; ``Economic Impact of GATT Patent Extension on
Currently Marketed Drugs,'' PRIME Institute, College of Pharmacy,
University of Minnesota (Mar. 1995), at Executive Summary; SBC Warburg
Dillon Read Inc., ``Industry Report--Specialty Pharmaceuticals: Generic
Drugs, May 20, 1998, at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the healthcare cost reductions that generic drugs have
generated, the savings could be even greater if FDA took final action
on generic drug applications within the statutorily required six
months.\5\ Due in large part to the infusion of directed appropriations
to OGD in 1998 and 1999, the agency has successfully focused on this
mandate.\6\ Yet, under the present budget, FDA estimates that the
improvement will stop--OGD's average review times for ANDAs actually
will increase in 2000 and 2001,\7\ and much of the fiscal year 2000
appropriations will be consumed by inflationary costs.\8\ At the same
time, an increase in future generic application submissions is almost
guaranteed since, over the next five years, brand drugs with annual
sales of $25.5 billion will come ``off patent,'' clearing the way for
more generic applications.\9\ Therefore, this Subcommittee must
continue its support for OGD, to ensure that the agency has adequate
funding to approve safe and effective generic drugs promptly and
efficiently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Under the law, FDA must take final action on generic drug
applications within 180 days. 21 U.S.C. Sec. 355(j)(5). In 1999, the
median time to approval for ANDAs was 17.3 months--almost three times
the length mandated by statute. HHS Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Plan,
Fiscal Year 2000 Final Performance Plan, and Fiscal Year 1999
Performance Report for FDA, at 64.
\6\ OGD's median approval time for ANDAs has steadily decreased,
from 19.6 months in 1997, to 18.7 months in 1998, and 17.3 months in
1999. HHS Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Plan, Fiscal Year 2000 Final
Performance Plan, and Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Report for FDA, at
64.
\7\ HHS fiscal year 2001 FDA Justification of Estimates for
Appropriations Committees, at 66.
\8\ FDA Allocates $13.5 Mil. For Inspection Requirements In Fiscal
Year 2001 Budget, F-D-C Reports, Inc., The Pink Sheet, Mar. 6, 2000, at
27 (quoting Commission Henney at a Feb. 29, 2000 House Appropriations
Subcommittee hearing).
\9\ SBC Warburg Dillon Read LLC data, reported in Generics: Best
Years to Come, MedAd News, Oct. 1999, at 1 (years 2000-2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE GENERIC INDUSTRY REQUESTS DIRECT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FASTER GENERIC
APPROVALS
GPIA, NAPM and NPA encourage the Subcommittee to continue its
support for cost-effective pharmaceuticals by providing direct
appropriations for OGD. These funds would enable OGD to progress
further toward meeting the six month statutory period for final agency
action on ANDAs, and address the backlog of ANDAs that remains at OGD.
Specifically, we recommend that the Subcommittee take the following
actions:
--Appropriate $1.5 million directly for the Office of Generic Drugs,
in addition to its fiscal year 2000 funding level;
--Continue to insist that FDA provide detailed and accurate
information about agency expenditures specifically for, and by,
OGD; and
--Include language in the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations
Bill to emphasize the Subcommittee's commitment to ensuring
accelerated FDA review and approval times for cost-effective
generic drugs.
These direct appropriations would assist OGD in reducing generic
drug approval times through staff training and information technology
upgrades, as described below.
WITH DIRECT APPROPRIATIONS, OGD CAN TRAIN STAFF AND ENHANCE
EFFICIENCIES
Among the most pressing needs at OGD is one for appropriately
trained staff members who can efficiently review generic drug
applications. The modest increases in OGD's budget over the last three
years have resulted in the addition of reviewers to the OGD staff.
While these staff members are essential to handling OGD's ever
increasing workload, their productivity can be improved. For example,
75 percent of OGD's microbiology reviewers have less than one year of
experience at OGD, 50 percent of OGD's project managers are new, and 20
percent of the chemistry reviewers have less than one year on the
job.\10\ These new reviewers would reach their potential much faster if
given the opportunity and overtime pay to participate in the training
programs that OGD used when funds were available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Sporn Leaves OGD With Generic Integrity Rebuilt, Generic Line,
Jan. 26, 2000, at 1-2 (quoting Doug Sporn, outgoing Director of OGD);
OGD's Approvals Decrease As Drugs Coming Off Patent Increase, FDA Week,
Feb. 4, 2000, at 2 (quoting Gary Buehler, incoming Director of OGD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH ADDITIONAL FUNDING, OGD CAN UPGRADE ITS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Another immediate need in fiscal year 2001 is to augment OGD's
information technology (IT) capability. An appropriation of $1.5
million would enable OGD to purchase information technology hardware
and software to expand and modernize several essential ANDA review
programs. These IT programs include: (1) the electronic ANDA
submissions program that is eliminating the need for volumes of
burdensome paper documents; (2) the computerized tracking system that
OGD project managers and generic companies rely on to evaluate the
progress of applications; (3) ANDA review software; and (4) a new
electronic filing system that is being developed for all offices within
the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
CONCLUSION
In sum, we request that Congress continue to guide FDA's priorities
by allocating resources directly to OGD. As medical treatment becomes
even more expensive and reliant on pharmaceuticals, it is important
that generic drug applications move through the approval process as
quickly as scientifically-sound reviews permit. Every day that a
generic drug is delayed from entering the market, Americans pay
millions of dollars more than necessary for their prescription drug
products.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we urge this Subcommittee to emphasize its
support for cost-effective pharmaceuticals by including the following
language in the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Bill:
``One of the most effective and immediate means to address the
rising cost of prescription drugs is to ensure that the American
consumer has timely access to more affordable generic medicines. In
recent years, Congress has provided increased appropriations for the
Office of Generic Drugs to hire more reviewers, reduce the backlog of
generic drug applications, and accelerate generic drug approvals.
Still, current approval times for generic drugs are three times the
statutory limit. In an effort to further reduce approval times, the
Committee has provided an increase above the amount available to the
Office of Generic Drugs of $1,500,000 to be used for employing and
training staff, and for upgrading information technology systems that
permit the electronic submission and review of generic drug
applications.''
Mr. Chairman, the members of GPIA, NAPM, and NPA would like to
thank you and the Subcommittee for your time and attention concerning
this critical aspect of FDA's fiscal year 2001 budget request. We look
forward to continuing our work with you and members of the Subcommittee
to bring safe, effective, and more affordable pharmaceuticals to the
American public.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HEALTH INDUSTRY MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
The Health Industry Manufacturers Association (HIMA) and its
members appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony on funding for
FDA in fiscal year 2001.
HIMA represents more than 800 manufacturers developing and selling
innovative medical technologies that save and improve lives and help
reduce costs. HIMA member firms provide nearly 90 percent of the $68
billion of health care technology products purchased annually in the
United States, and nearly 50 percent of the $159 billion purchased
annually around the world.
This year's budget deliberations occur at a time when FDA and
medical technology companies are entering a new era of rapid and
dramatic breakthroughs. Fields such as information technology,
genomics, nanotechnology and tissue engineering promise to produce
exciting life-saving and life-improving breakthroughs in the coming
decade.
FDA Commissioner Jane Henney, M.D., summed up the new era her
agency faces in recent testimony before this subcommittee. Commenting
on the dramatic advances in medical technology we will witness in the
years ahead, Dr. Henney said: ``New products entering the marketplace
will change the face of health care and will help us lead longer,
healthier lives. They will also bring enormous economic benefits, both
in lessening the cost of health care and in returning profits on the
investments that are being made in research.''
Medical device and diagnostics manufacturers are investing heavily
in research and development to bring these breakthroughs to fruition. A
report scheduled for release later this week by the Lewin Group is
expected to quantify the significant increases in R&D spending that
medical technology companies have made over the last five years.
In making these heavy R&D investments, HIMA members are acutely
aware of the challenges FDA faces in making these innovations available
to patients in a timely manner.
FDA's premarket review responsibilities will become more complex
and difficult as medical technology advances at an increasingly rapid
pace. Many of tomorrow's breakthroughs will defy the traditional
device/drug/biologic regulatory classifications. FDA faces a tremendous
challenge in adapting to this change in a way that allows it to review
new technologies and get them to patients in a timely manner.
Clearly, changes are needed soon in order not only to enable FDA to
meet its statutory review times but to meet the goal the Administration
set in its fiscal year 2001 budget request of beginning ``the process
of preparing FDA for a new age of rapid biomedical and pharmaceutical
innovation.'' This new age is rapidly approaching, and the time to
start preparing is now.
fda needs additional premarket resources to prepare for the new age in
MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION
This new era of biomedical breakthroughs is arriving at a time when
the agency lacks the resources to meet even its current premarket
review duties. In December 1998, FDA Senior Associate Commissioner
Linda Suydam estimated that the agency is $165 million short of what it
actually needs to do its job. Last year's funding increase of $7
million for device premarket reviews was an important step forward.
The inclusion in last year's budget of a specific line-item for
device premarket review activities also was an important precedent.
HIMA believes that FDA's device review program will continue to warrant
specific attention in the budget as the agency prepares for the coming
explosion in medical technology innovation.
HIMA believes FDA should have the resources it needs to meet its
statutory time frames, both now and in the future. This means
completing final actions for premarket approval applications for
breakthrough products within 180 days and 510(k)s for incremental
advances within 90 days.
The performance goals the Administration outlines for device
premarket reviews in its fiscal year 2001 budget justification document
move in the right direction. Yet they also show that FDA is still not
meeting its statutory device review timeframes.
Because of the budget shortfall for premarket reviews, HIMA
wholeheartedly supports the Administration's request for increased
appropriations for the device program in fiscal year 2001.
Specifically, the entire $14 mil. sought by the Administration ($7.7
mil. from appropriations and $5.8 mil. from new user fees) should be
allocated to FDA's device review program through direct appropriations.
This funding is urgently needed to help FDA prepare for the coming
revolution in medical technology.
While HIMA supports increased FDA funding through appropriations we
believe that, absent authorizing legislation, the Administration's
request for $5.8 mil. in new device user fees should not be approved.
Rather, this funding should be provided to FDA through direct
appropriations targeted to device premarket reviews. We urge the
Administration to use additional premarket funds to contract out
portions of device reviews, especially those for which the agency lacks
the scientific expertise. This is an important way that FDA can meet
its goal of bolstering its science base.
HIMA believes the Subcommittee should consider providing FDA with
the appropriations levels proposed in the Administration's budget for
review of premarket applications. The funding needed for timely FDA
premarket reviews is indeed a small investment in making the life-
saving and life-improving fruits of research, both public and private,
available to patients. Now is the time to make the necessary
investments to ensure that patients have access to the latest medical
innovations.
Finally, we point out the importance of FDA's biologics center; an
important yet sometimes overlooked aspect of the agency's device review
program. FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research also
requires additional resources to meet its device review
responsibilities. As the line between biologics and medical devices
becomes increasingly blurred, it will become more important to ensure
that FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research has adequate
resources to do its job.
regulatory changes are needed to prepare fda for the new age of medical
TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION
HIMA further believes, however, that increased FDA funding for
premarket reviews is only part of the answer to timely patient access
to medical innovations. FDA also needs new and better ways of doing its
job. In order to meet the coming biomedical revolution, the agency must
be as innovative in its regulation of new technologies as researchers
are in developing them.
FDA has shown a commitment to finding new approaches to getting its
job done, and this commitment should be encouraged and expanded on. FDA
has demonstrated this commitment through successfully implementing some
key provisions of the FDA Modernization Act, such as exemption of
additional devices from 510(k) premarket review. It also is reflected
in the improvement in device review times that FDA has made over the
past two years.
HIMA has been encouraged by FDA's recent work towards successful
implementation of some other crucial FDAMA provisions. The agency's
cooperative work with medical technology companies to implement the
law's ``least burdensome'' premarket review provision is one example.
We hope to work closely with the agency in completing implementation of
other key provisions of the law such as the 510(k) third-party review
program and the provision on early meetings with new product sponsors.
Instead of levying a user fee to increase participation in the
third-party review program, HIMA believes that FDA can improve the
program by expanding the types of devices eligible for outside review.
Currently, the vast majority of the devices eligible for outside review
are very simple products such as blood pressure cuffs and dental cement
where FDA already has an excellent review record. It is interesting to
note that the current third-party review program has been most
successful for the more complex products such as diagnostic imaging
systems for which more premarket expertise is required.
FDA should expand the list of devices eligible for third-party
review to add more complex devices so that the program is available to
those product sponsors who could benefit most from it. HIMA is
encouraged by the agency's recent willingness to expand the third-party
review program and to consult with industry stakeholders in this
effort.
Contracting out premarket review work to independent third parties
and partnering with medical technology companies are two important ways
that FDA can meet its goal of expanding its science base.
As FDA Commissioner Jane Henney stated in her recent testimony, the
agency ``must be able to anticipate and access the cutting-edge science
that will be needed to regulate the products of future technology.''
HIMA strongly agrees that FDA must remain on the cutting edge of
science, and believes that one useful way to achieve this goal is for
FDA to make greater use of the expertise of the researchers who are
advancing this science and applying it to medical technology
breakthroughs.
As the pace of medical technology innovation quickens, it will
become increasingly important for FDA to look to outside expertise to
make sure the agency does not become an ever-tighter regulatory
bottleneck.
Medical technology innovation comprises many specialized
disciplines, and new fields of research continue to emerge. In addition
to the third-party review program for 510(k)s, FDA should also consider
contracting out for reviews of some high-tech devices to provide
assistance in regulating dynamic and rapidly advancing medical
technologies, rather than attempting to acquire internal expertise in
every discipline.
FDA MUST MAKE WISE USE OF SCARCE RESOURCES TO PREPARE FOR THE NEW AGE
OF MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION
As FDA's regulatory responsibilities become more complex in the
coming years, it will be ever more important for it to spend its
dollars where they have the greatest impact. This holds true for both
device premarket reviews and postmarket activities.
HIMA applauds the steps FDA has taken in its device postmarket
program to work more efficiently and effectively. Recent innovative and
collaborative initiatives include pre-announced inspections of device
facilities, taking steps to create a more open, interactive inspection
process, and conducting a survey with industry on the inspection
process. Steps such as these help FDA meet its postmarket
responsibilities more effectively and efficiently.
Congress Should Consider Voluntary Reporting Methods on Medical Errors
FDA must be especially prudent in spending its resources in light
of the broad scope of its regulatory programs, from ensuring food
safety to helping reduce medical errors. The Institute of Medicine's
recent report on medical errors, as well as a follow-up report by the
government's interagency task force, highlight the important work FDA
conducts in this area.
As you may know, medical technology manufacturers already have
mandatory reporting of device-related adverse events, thus helping to
reduce medical errors. In addition, the FDA is in the process of
implementing a user facility ``sentinel reporting'' (also known as the
MedSuN) system.
HIMA supports the work FDA is doing under its current statutory
authority to gather adverse event reports from sentinel user
facilities. This initiative has the potential to generate valuable
information on medical errors, and to do so in a way that focuses on
the quality rather than the quantity of information gathered.
As FDA implements the sentinel reporting program, it is critically
important to make sure the agency is receiving high quality information
that is useful to providers and manufacturers in reducing medical
errors. It is important to make sure FDA is gathering useful
information under its current program before expanding it to additional
facilities.
John Eisenberg, M.D., Director of the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality, stressed the importance of the need for high-
quality data at an FDA Science Forum in mid-February, where he urged
policy makers and stakeholders ``not just to count [errors] but to make
it count.''
The pressing need to reduce medical errors is another important
reason why timely FDA premarket reviews are so important. Many medical
device companies are developing technologies that show great promise in
reducing medical errors. These products, such as drug infusion
monitoring and control systems need to be approved by FDA and brought
to bear on the medical errors problem as quickly as possible.
Finally, as policy makers consider how the government can best help
reduce medical errors, it is important to keep in mind device
companies' long-standing focus on working closely with the health care
community to find ways to reduce errors. A good example of this is in
area of anesthesia care, where two medical device companies helped
found the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation (APSF).
In 1984, anesthesiologists, medical equipment manufacturers and
other health professionals formed the APSF to tackle the problem of
anesthesia-related deaths and injuries. The group for the first time
brought together the clinical community, manufacturers, government
agencies and patients to address the problem.
The APSF brought about crucial changes in anesthesia practice and
technology. For example, it encouraged the widespread adoption of
oximeters and capnographs among anesthesiologists so that patients
under anesthesia were monitored more effectively. As a result of APSF's
work, the anesthesia mortality rate has dropped from an estimated two
deaths in 10,000 cases to one in every 100,000 to 200,000 cases.
Although the recent focus has been heavily focused on mandatory
reporting, voluntary partnerships between manufacturers, the clinical
community, academia, and government agencies like the APSF should form
a key component of policy makers' overall strategy for reducing medical
errors.
CONCLUSION
HIMA urges this Subcommittee to help prepare the FDA for the coming
era of biomedical innovation. To ready FDA for this era and ensure that
patients enjoy timely access to the coming dramatic breakthrough is
medicine, we must take several important steps:
--First, Congress must adequately fund FDA's device and biologics
premarket review programs. HIMA supports an increase in
appropriations of $14 mil. for FDA device review activities.
Additional resources will become even more critical in the
coming years as dramatic new medical breakthroughs begin to
arrive at FDA for review.
--Second, FDA needs new and innovative ways to meet its regulatory
obligations. Congress should encourage the agency to strengthen
and expand on steps the agency has recently taken in this
direction. As FDA looks to strengthen its science base, it
should find ways to make use of the existing science base
outside the agency. Partnering with experts in the clinical,
research, and manufacturing fields is one effective way to do
this.
HIMA again thanks the committee for this opportunity to present our
views and looks forward to working with you in helping prepare FDA for
the coming revolution in biomedical innovation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Illinois Soybean Association
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee: The Illinois Soybean
Association, an organization of approximately 4,000 leading soybean
producers, and the University of Illinois, a major land-grant
institution, join in requesting that $3.5 million in federal funds be
authorized to establish a Soybean Disease Biotechnology Center within
the National Soybean Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois.
Among other goals for this initiative, we wish to foster well
coordinated public and private research leading to safe, nutritious,
healthy, affordable, and convenient soy products for consumers and
sustainable competitive advantage for the U.S. and Illinois soy
industries.
We will ask the Illinois Soybean Checkoff Board to contribute
$500,000 to help establish the Center. We will also ask them to
entertain proposals from the Center for program support in the future.
The University of Illinois will contribute core staff, space, general
support services and facilities, and utilities and will operate and
maintain the Center henceforth in support of soybean disease
biotechnology research.
ROLE OF THE CENTER
The Soybean Disease Biotechnology Center will be the first line of
defense against major soybean diseases that threaten the U.S. soybean
industry, especially the soybean cyst nematode (SCN). It will provide
outstanding research talent and state-of-the-art facilities, equipment,
and support services for cutting-edge biotechnology research on major
soybean diseases. The Center will bring the power of the new sciences
of structural, comparative, and functional genomics and genetic
transformation to bear on SCN and other current and potential disease
threats, including major diseases not yet in the U.S., such as soybean
rust.
Center researchers will identify and create new and improved
mechanisms of disease escape, tolerance, and resistance. The aim is to
protect the soybean crop and increase its profitability throughout the
industry. Genetic disease control mechanisms in the germplasm and
genetic stocks of the National Soybean Germplasm Collection, located at
the University of Illinois, will be a unique, readily accessible
resource for the Center. In addition, genetic mechanisms of escape,
resistance, and tolerance in other species will be identified and
transferred to the soybean. Accordingly, highly effective disease
control genes can be used for ``stacking'' in soybean varieties. This
will assure the realization of gains from other genetic improvements,
such as unique quality traits.
setting for soybean disease biotechnology research
Researchers in the Soybean Disease Biotechnology Center will use
the support services of the University of Illinois' new Keck Center for
Comparative and Functional Genomics, with its high throughput genetic
sequencing, unequaled bioinformatics capabilities, and unique, one-of-
a-kind genetic analysis tools. This will greatly facilitate evaluation
of materials in the National Soybean Germplasm Collection. Researchers
will also have ready access to the University of Illinois Biotechnology
Center, which provides recombinant DNA and protein science services,
immunological resources, flow cytometry, high capacity transgenic plant
production, and cell and tissue culture, among other valuable support
services.
There will be direct access to superb conventional greenhouse and
controlled environment facilities in adjacent, connected structures. As
part of this project, a biocontainment greenhouse will be constructed
specifically to provide the levels of isolation and protection required
for sophisticated disease biotechnology research. An elaborate system
of research farms will be available for testing new developments in a
wide range of soil, climatic, and socio-economic conditions.
The Center will complement and connect with the new St. Louis-
headquartered Danforth Plant Science Center and participate in the
Illinois-Missouri Biotechnology Alliance. As part of the program of the
National Soybean Research Laboratory (NSRL), work at the Center will be
strategically integrated with other public and private efforts to
conceive, plan, and implement soybean production and marketing systems
of the future. This will foster interdisciplinary and cross-functional
efforts that speed development and adoption of new technology and gain
competitive advantage for the U.S. soybean industry.
NSRL is a major interface between the soybean industry, as
represented by state and national soybean organizations and checkoff
boards, and university research and education programs. NSRL was
initiated by a USDA special grant of $5 million. NSRL is directed by a
Chair Professor of Agricultural Strategy, the only so-named
professorship in the nation. The Chair position was endowed by the
soybean industry, which contributes $40 to $80 million annually to
soybean research.
NSRL fosters strategic public/private alliances within the soybean
industry and with other commodity-based industries. It achieves
extraordinary levels of communication, coordination, and integration of
publicly and privately financed research and educational programs
across the nation. As developer of STRATSOY, the most sophisticated and
useful commodity website, NSRL provided the soybean industry with a
powerful tool for uniting its far-flung checkoff-funded programs,
disseminating information, eliminating redundancy, sharpening strategic
focus, and increasing the return on both public and private investment
in soy research.
Its association with the NSRL will assure that research in the
Soybean Disease Biotechnology Center will fully complement and benefit
from other soy research programs across the nation and world. It will
assure that the results of fundamental soybean disease biotechnology
research are quickly translated into practical technology, useful
information, and sustainable competitive advantage for the industry.
The NSRL mission of increasing the volume of profitable, sustainable
business in the soy industry will become the mission of the Soybean
Disease Biotechnology Center.
This is an excellent time to establish the proposed Center because
the University of Illinois is ramping up its Postgenomic Biotechnology
Program. A multi-million investment of state funds will provide new
biotechnology positions in functional genomics, bioinformatics,
developmental biology, microanalytic systems, and cellular and
molecular bioengineering. This will enhance the effort to fill new
positions in plant disease biotechnology with outstanding scientist/
educators who already have established impressive track records. The
Center will also benefit from the investment of Illinois in an expanded
University of Illinois business incubator and research park to assure
rapid commercialization of promising new technologies from the
University's research program.
GOALS OF THE CENTER
The Soybean Disease Biotechnology Center will:
--Provide a superb setting for cutting-edge soybean disease
biotechnology research.
--Foster and support the very best soybean disease biotechnology
research team in the world.
--Assure that effective soybean disease escape, resistance, and
tolerance genes are available for ``stacking'' in top U.S.
soybean varieties.
--Eliminate the soybean cyst nematode as a major threat to the U.S.
soybean industry and prevent harm from introduction of foreign
disease organisms.
--Enable molecular soybean pathology research through which the
Illinois and U.S. soybean industries will achieve and maintain
preeminence in global and domestic markets for soybeans and
soybean products.
--Enable the U.S. soy industry to capture proprietary benefits from
soybean biotechnology research and other research conducted all
over the world.
--Enhance the global and strategic significance of the National
Soybean Research Laboratory and empower its scientists, thus
maximizing its benefits for the nation.
SUMMARY
We request that $3.5 million be authorized to establish a Soybean
Disease Biotechnology Center within the National Soybean Research
Laboratory at the University of Illinois. These funds, complemented by
state funds and industry contributions, will be used to staff, equip,
house, and operate the center, and launch and sustain its programs.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to acquaint you with
the important research and biological control efforts underway by
Federal, State, regional, County and local entities to combat and
effectively control, not only the persistent whitefly and pink
bollworm, but also threats by newly introduced exotic species.
In the last twelve months, Imperial County and other areas of the
Southwestern United States have experienced the introduction of four
new exotic pests; the pink hibiscus mealybug; giant salvinia, an
aquatic weed; the citrus leafminer; and the red gum lerp psyllid. Also,
we are on the fringe of an infestation of the glassy-winged
sharpshooter/Pierce's disease complex. Even though the glassywinged
sharpshooter has not reached Imperial County, the potential threat to
our small, but prosperous grape industry is very high.
The following testimony will focus on funding for the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) (specifically, the Methods Development Lab and the
Plant Protection Centers) and the Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
for fiscal year 2001.
funding for silverleaf whitefly (bemisia agentifolii)
The silverleaf whitefly (SLW) remains a serious national pest
problem, resulting in conservatively estimated crop losses exceeding
$500 million a year in the United States. Economic losses from the
silverleaf whitefly have involved cotton and a wide range of
ornamentals, melons and vegetable crops.
The need for an effective SLW biological control program is
paramount. While chemicals continue to provide a short term solution to
the problem, the threat of insecticide resistance and the importance of
an effective management program cannot be overemphasized.
We are continuing an aggressive pursuit of IPM methodology using
biological control, natural predators, and plant pathogens coupled with
intensive weed control and crop sanitation. In addition, we are using
fewer chemical applications and less toxic pesticides. These IPM
technologies are designed to comply with the Clinton administration's
1993 policy statement of utilizing IPM practices on 70 percent of
United States farmland by the year 2000.
In the Imperial Valley, the USDA has made numerous augmentative
releases of exotic parasitoids in the refugia and commercial fields to
assess their effectiveness against the silverleaf whitefly. Four of
these exotic species have become established and have been recovered up
to six miles away from the original release sites. The USDA APHIS PPQ
Methods Development Unit has also begun an extensive multi-variant
analysis to assess the effect of the surrounding crops and chemical
usage on SLW and their parasites and also the effect of the parasites
on the SLW populations.
We cannot overemphasize the importance of the five-year Silverleaf
Whitefly National Research, Action, and Technology Transfer Plan (1997-
2001). This plan defines the continuing need for a highly coordinated
and cooperative program, including long term goals and objectives, and
provides technology transfer to the scientific community, legislators,
regulators, the agricultural industry, and the public. This is the all-
important vehicle by which the agricultural community will directly
benefit from the significant SLW research which the five-year plan has
yielded. Long-term economically, socially, and environmentally
acceptable management systems are being developed from the extensive
knowledge base developed to provide a more complete understanding of
whitefly biology, ecology, and host plant interactions. This plan is
designed to provide a smooth transition of this research into the
field. We urge you to fund the Technology Transfer, New Research and
Action Plan at no less than $5.8 million for ARS and $1.85 million for
APHIS.
FUNDING FOR PINK HEBISCUS MEALYBUG (MACONEFFICOCCUS HIRSUTUS)
During the late fall of 1999, the pink hibiscus mealybug (PHM) was
detected in Imperial County. This was the first detection recorded in
the continental United States. This mealybug, present in the Caribbean
since the mid 1990's, was first expected to arrive in Florida. How it
came to appear in Imperial County is still a mystery. However, there is
a great potential for this pest to cause serious economic damage to
agriculture in Imperial County and the southwest.
There are international quarantines imposed against several types
of fresh market produce which are reported to harbor this pest. These
quarantines could have a serious impact on our ability to export fresh
produce to the Pacific Rim.
Following the detection of this pest in Imperial County, it was
found across the border in the Mexicali Valley of Mexico. With the
rapid assistance of USDA-APHIS, a survey and public outreach program
was undertaken in a very expeditious manner. I must state my praise for
APHIS' quick reaction to this pest.
At the same time, a leading USDA scientist in the Caribbean
responded rapidly with exotic biological control organisms. These
parasitic wasps have been very successful in containing PHM in the
Caribbean. This scientist not only put on workshops, but also released
several thousand parasites on both sides of the border. Subsequent to
that, a second shipment of parasites arrived and were released by
biologists from Imperial County and the California Department of Food
and Agriculture.
Imperial County, in conjunction with the California Department of
Food and Agriculture and the APHIS Methods Development Center, has
established a rearing facility for these PHM parasites in Imperial
County. We hope to be able to produce and release enough parasites to
keep this potentially harmful pest below significant economic levels in
Imperial County, surrounding regions and Mexico.
Because of the numerous parties involved, including the USDA-AP1HS
and ARS, the University of California, the California Department of
Food and Agriculture (CDFA), and the Imperial County Agricultural
Commissioner's Office, this project requires a significant amount of
coordination to avoid overlap and duplication of project activities. We
are requesting $50,000 to fund a Project Coordinator, which would
provide a single point of contact to which all involved parties could
report. The Project Coordinator would also synchronize the efforts of
all agencies and would provide public outreach and education.
FUNDING FOR THE CITRUS LEAFMINER (PHYLLOCNISTIS CITRELLA)
This pest was found but a few weeks ago during a routine inspection
of a local retail nursery. The citrus leafminer is considered an
serious pest and is currently found in Florida and Texas. Follow up
surveys of the surrounding areas verified that the pest was also
present in a large commercial orchard in the Mexicali-San Luis Valley
of Mexico and several backyard locations in southern Imperial County.
The large areas in which this pest was found made it impossible to
undertake eradication, especially since it has been reported to be
present in Arizona.
In cooperation with the nursery owner where the initial find was
made, the young, heavily infested citrus trees were destroyed. The
mature trees on the property were stripped of foliage showing signs of
leafminer infestation and the cuttings destroyed.
Since this pest spends almost all of its life inside the leaf,
conventional pesticides are not effective. The most successful method
of control for this pest are biocontrol agents. There are several
indigenous parasitic wasps that are effective against this pest. Also,
there is a very voracious exotic parasite that requires importation
from Australia. This parasite has been reported to be up to 90 percent
effective. Again, we are faced with the necessity of having to locally
rear parasites in sufficient numbers for release to provide adequate
control and to help reduce the economic impact this pest could have on
our citrus industry. We are requesting $50,000 to expedite the foreign
exploration, importation, and evaluation of exotic parasites to combat
this pest.
FUNDING FOR GIANT SALVINIA (SALVINIA MOLESTA)
Giant salvinia is an exotic aquatic weed that was recently
discovered in an agricultural drain of the Palo Verde Irrigation
District, the lower portion of the Colorado River (on both the
California and Arizona sides of the river) and a large portion of the
Imperial Irrigation District canal system. This plant, if left
uncontrolled, has the potential to completely clog the waterways
currently infested, thereby severely restricting the flow of water. The
potential negative economic impact this could have is manyfold, but the
primary impact is increased maintenance costs to keep the waterways
free and flowing.
This weed is currently under eradication. The involved agencies are
using two strategies to eradicate this pest. First, an herbicide is
used to reduce the surface size of giant salvania mats; then, a weed-
eating beetle is used to complete the task.
Releasing these predacious beetles on salvinia is not only time
consuming, but could take several years to accomplish. A facility will
be required to rear these beetles over a large period of time. This
weed is also found in Texas and Arkansas. We are requesting $50,000 for
expanded and expedited survey, detection, and eradication activities.
It seems as though the desert southwest has become the revolving
door for the introduction of exotic pests. It also appears,
particularly in light of the recent actions caused by the Food Quality
Protection Act, that the most logical method by which to combat these
pests is through the introduction of biocontrol agents. The vast
majority of these biocontrol agents are small parasites and predators.
In order for us to rapidly attack and continue to do battle with these
exotic pests, we must have the ability to take known biological control
agents which have been released from quarantine and evaluated by either
the University of California or the APHIS Plant Protection Centers, and
mass rear them locally for release.
As a result of the increased biocontrol activity caused by all of
these exotic pests, we are requesting $100,000 to fund a feasibility
study which would identify the resources, partners, and personnel
necessary to establish a mass rearing facility for biological control
agents, possibly at the Brawley Research Center. The facility would not
compete with the biocontrol quarantine facility at either the
University of California (UCR) or other USDA facilities, but rather
would act cooperatively with them to mass rear parasites which they
have evaluated and released from quarantine.
FUNDING FOR RED GUM LERP PSYLLID (GLYCASPIS BRIMBLECOMVEI) AND GLASSY-
WINGED SHARPSHOOTER (HOMALADISCA COAGULATA)
There are currently no known biocontrol agents for either red gum
lerp psyllid or glassy-winged sharpshooter. A world-wide search is
currently being conducted and if effective parasites or predators are
found, having a mass rearing facility available would expedite the
rearing and release of these agents.
FUNDING FOR PINK BOLLWORM (PECTINOPHORA GOSSYPIELLA)
Pink bollworm has been an exotic pest of cotton for several years.
It is singularly responsible for the decline of cotton acreage not only
in the southwestern United States, but northwestern Mexico. Costs to
control this pest using conventional methods have risen dramatically
and that, in combination with declining cotton markets, has made it
impossible to continue to grow this crop in an economical manner.
Through the efforts of the USDA APHIS Methods Development Lab, the
University of California and the California and Arizona Cotton Growers,
a bi-national strategy was developed which would eventually lead to the
eradication of the pink bollworm from the cotton growing regions of the
United States.
Even though the Arizona cotton growers have temporarily put their
participation in the project on hold, the cotton growers in the upper
Rio Grande/Trans-Pecos area and their counterparts on the Mexican side
of the Rio Grande River have embraced the project with sincere
enthusiasm.
Research needs to continue on such soft technologies as the
autocidal biocontrol agent currently being developed by APHIS Methods
Development and the University of California at Riverside. This
particular agent holds great promise by becoming the biocontrol agent
that could replace transgenic ``Bt'' cotton in the continuing effort to
eradicate pink bollworm.
$2.6 million dollars is needed for APHIS-PPQ and Methods
Development to achieve the important objectives of promoting strategies
for region-wide eradication of PBW in California, Arizona and northwest
Mexico, as well as continuing to keep this voracious and economically
devastating pest out of the prime cotton producing areas of
California's San Joaquin Valley. This technology would also help cotton
farmers comply with the reduced use of pesticides as required by the
Food Quality Protection Act. Ultimately hundreds of thousands of pounds
of pesticides could be eliminated from the environment if the pink
bollworm was eradicated from the southwestern United States and
northwestern Mexico.
SUMMARY OF FUNDING REQUESTS
Continuation of funding for the Silverleaf Whitefly National
Research, Action and Technology Transfer Plan: $5.8 million for ARS and
$1.85 million for APHIS.
Funding for pink hibiscus mealybug joint county-state-federal-
binational coordination: $50,000.
Funding for citrus leafminer for foreign exploration, importation
and evaluation of exotic parasites: $50,000.
Funding for giant salvinia for survey, detection and eradication
activities in California and Arizona: $50,000.
Funding for identifying resources, partners and personnel necessary
to establish mass rearing Biological Control Center for desert
southwest which is an invasive species corridor for exotic pests:
$100,000.
Funding for the APHIS-PPQ Methods Development dealing with pink
bollworm in California, Arizona and northwest Mexico and prevention in
San Joaquin Valleys: $2.6 million.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE AGENCIES
NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS)
The Natural Resource 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, and the Federal Agricultural Improvement and
Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996.
Technical Assistance.--The USDA publication ``Geography of Hope''
identifies that the need for general Conservation Technical Assistance
for America's private landowner will continue to increase to 2002 and
beyond. An fiscal year 1999 workload analysis indicated the need for an
additional $300 million for technical assistance. The Association
applauds and supports the $86.4 million requested increase in
Conservation Operations as a move in the right direction but recognizes
a yet unbudgeted shortfall of an additional $250 million. The
Association enthusiastically supports the increase of 1,843 staff years
for more field staff to provide technical assistance required for
existing programs as well as the Administration's proposed new
initiatives.
In addition to increasing general (non-programmatic) technical
assistance, increased technical assistance funds are needed to
implement increasingly popular provisions of the 1996 FAIR Act. The
budget for the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program (WHIP), and the Farmland Protection Program (FPP)
all include the customary 19 percent to 20 percent for technical
assistance. The Association strongly supports this level of funding
provided to ensure that optimum agriculture and natural resource
benefits will accrue from these programs. Not obvious in the list of
programs that provided adequate levels of technical assistance is the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). The proposed fiscal
year 2001 budget raises EQIP from $174 million to $325 million, which
the Association applauds. It is not clear, however, that additional
funds are available to provide the required technical assistance to a
field level program with such a large increase. Some Programs (CRP,
WRP, CFO and FPP) have a technical assistance cap set by Section 11 of
the CCC Charter Act at the 1995 spending level. No such constraint
exists on EQIP. The Association therefore strongly urges the
designation of the customary 19 percent for technical assistance on
EQIP. The Association further recommends raising the Section 11 cap on
CCC funds to $95 million, which are the funds necessary to provide
technical assistance for CCC funded programs at the 2001 level.
Increasingly, state fish and wildlife agencies are contributing
staff time to help NRCS field offices service landowner participation
in USDA conservation programs including WHIP, CRP, WRP and EQIP. The
Association strongly encourages the Administration to consider sharing
technical assistance funds, allocated for these programs, with state
agency partners.
Conservation Security Program (CSP).--This new program initiative
is intended to support and secure the environmental benefits that all
Americans enjoy--clean air and water, reduced erosion, improved
wildlife habitat and sustainable soil. The Association strongly
supports the concept of the proposed CSP as well as the budget item of
$510 million for financial assistance to landowners plus $90 million
for technical support. Especially notable is the mandatory allocation
of an approximate 17 percent of total funding to technical assistance.
Wetland Determination.--We believe the need for wetland
determination, certification, and mapping is great and urge NRCS to
proceed as soon as possible, under the guidance of the FAIR Act of
1996. The Association urges expeditious completion of the wetland
determinations required to implement the Swampbuster provisions of the
1985 FSA, 1990 FACT Act, and the 1996 FAIR Act as well as the FAIR Act
directed interagency cooperation whereby NRCS assumed responsibility
for wetland designation for Section 404 (Clean Water Act) purposes on
farmland, including tree farms, rangelands, native pasture, and other
private lands used to produce or support the production of livestock.
The Association and individual states wish to continue to work with
NRCS to help achieve these goals.
Public Law 566.--The Association generally supports the small
watershed (Public Law 566) projects. That support is based upon
continued emphasis on updated watershed planning and management. Such
efforts could utilize and expand upon existing Public Law 566 plans
examined in light of present day issues of wetland protection, water
quality enhancement and fish and wildlife habitat. The greatest
potential for these programs is for land treatment measures that retain
the water on the land, improve infiltration, improve water quantity and
quality, and provide fish and wildlife habitat. Structural and non-
structural land treatment activities require state and local matching
funds to leverage greater conservation benefits for each federal dollar
spent while promoting valuable partnerships among states, local
agencies, and other organizations.
National Buffer Initiative.--NRCS has implemented this initiative
in cooperation with industry and other partners. The Association is
pleased to be a sponsor of this innovative approach. The National
Academy of Sciences has found that buffer strips can reduce off-field
pollution by 70 percent, thus also contributing to meeting non-point
source remediation goals under the Clean Water Act. Unfortunately, the
level of sign-up by producers remains very low. NRCS has committed
special emphasis and a major effort to use the buffer strip practices
covered by the continuous CRP sign-up in a more targeted fashion.
Unlike the large or whole field CRP retirements, buffer strips will
require extensive outreach plus the much more attractive rental rates
than now proposed. The Association supports the allocation of the
additional $125 million specifically for new incentives, increased
outreach and more attractive rental rates to increase participation in
the various buffer practices. In addition, a review and evaluation of
why sign-up is low and how it can be improved is strongly recommended.
Forest Incentive Program (FIP).--The Forest Incentive Programs
(FIP) has multiple resource values for fish, forests, wildlife, clean
water and erosion control. The Association opposes the NRCS proposed
intention to zero out FIP funding and strongly recommends that the
fiscal year 1999 level of $16.325 million be restored in the fiscal
year 2001 budget.
Capped Programs.--The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), Wildlife
Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) and Farmland Protection Program (FPP)
have all reached or are near authorized acreage or appropriation caps.
In addition, funding levels for the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP) has not been sufficient to meet landowner interest or
needs. We believe that due to the overwhelming success, customer
acceptance and public benefits of these programs, they should be
reauthorized. Therefore, we applaud the Administration's Farm Safety
Net proposal to provide additional support to farmers through funding
WRP at $286 million, EQIP at $325 million, WHIP at $50 million and FPP
at $65 million. The Association also applauds the efforts of the
Administration to raise the cap on the Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP) to 40 million acres.
FARM SERVICE AGENCY (FSA)
An adequately funded budget for the FSA is essential to implement
those conservation related programs and provisions under FSA
administration and/or in cooperation with NRCS as a result of passage
of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996.
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 personnel has been inconsistent with
program needs. The Association applauds the Administration's proposed
personnel levels but also sees the need for an additional 600 staff
years of temporary assistance.
FSA programs have tremendous quantifiable impacts on natural
resources, and yield substantial public as well as private benefits.
Building on the provisions of the 1985 FSA, the 1990 FACT Act, and the
1996 FAIR Act, the Association wants to ensure that each program
accomplishes the broadest possible range of natural resource
objectives, and encourages close cooperation between FSA, NRCS and the
State Technical Committees in implementing the 1996 FAIR Act.
Conservation Security Program.--This new program initiative is
intended to support and secure the environmental benefits that all
American's enjoy--clean air and water, reduced erosion, improved
wildlife habitat and sustainable soil. The Association strongly
supports the concept of the proposed CSP as well as the budget item of
$510 million for financial assistance to landowners plus $90 million
for technical support. Especially notable is the mandatory allocation
of an approximate 17 percent of total funding to technical assistance.
Flood Risk Reduction Program.--We believe this program has great
potential to mesh with the Army Corp of Engineers Rivers Ecosystem
Restoration and Flood Hazard Mitigation Project which is a part of the
President's Clean Water Initiative. In addition, this program has
excellent potential to secure floodplain restoration through easement
purchase, to the benefit of the landowner, and as an alternative to
expensive and recurring repair of frequently flooded land. We urge FSA
to prepare regulations and budget for implementation and make every
effort to ensure that language used in its easements and agreements
provide a streamlined basis for appropriate administration and are
user-friendly. The Association is disappointed that no budget is
requested and urges that a start-up budget of $30 million be initiated
to assist in the President's Clean Water initiative.
Conservation Reserve Program.--The continued administration of CRP
under the guidelines of the 1996 FAIR Act 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 is
especially pleased to note the commitment to raise the authorized
ceiling to 40 million acres. The Association provides special thanks to
FSA for the continuous CRP sign-up of high value environmental
practices and applauds the additional $125 million in new incentives to
increase landowner participation as well as ensure that practices
incorporate fish and wildlife needs along with soil and water
considerations.
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. Management/
maintenance strategies are essential to ensure continuation of soil,
water and wildlife benefits throughout the life of the CRP contract.
However, the ``up-to-$5/acre'' maintenance payment tends to be viewed
by many landowners as additional rental payment, whether maintenance
practices are performed or not. The Association encourages FSA to
convert the annual maintenance fee to cost-share on an as-needed basis
to ensure soil, water and wildlife objectives reflected in the EBI are
realized as well as to ensure wise use of public funding for CRP.
WILDLIFE SERVICES (APHIS)
The President's fiscal year 2001 proposed budget for the APHIS
Wildlife Services Operations is $28,684,000 and reflects a $2,711,000
decrease from the fiscal year 2000 level. For Methods Development, the
proposed budget is $10,525,000, a $168,000 increase from the fiscal
year 2000 level. For Aquaculture, the proposed budget is $576,000, a
decrease of $190,000 from the fiscal year 2000 level. The Association
is seriously concerned about reductions to Wildlife Service's budget.
Wildlife Services (WS) a unit of APHIS, is the Federal agency
responsible for controlling wildlife damage to agriculture,
aquaculture, forest, range and other natural resources; for protecting
public health and safety through the control of wildlife-borne
diseases; and wildlife control at airports. Its control activities are
based on the principles of wildlife management and integrated damage
management and are carried out cooperatively with State fish and
wildlife agencies. Most APHIS WS operational work is cost shared
between the Federal WS program, State and county governments,
agricultural producers, and other cooperators.
The cooperation and support of the agricultural community are
essential to maintaining wildlife populations because much of the
Nation's wildlife exists on private agricultural lands. A progressive
wildlife damage management program which reduces the adverse impact of
wildlife populations is necessary to maintain the support of the
agrarian community and to counter increasing pressures for indemnity
due to wildlife damage.
Since Congress transferred the WS program to USDA in 1986, the
Association has worked closely with this program on numerous issues
critical to the State fish and wildlife agencies including those
related to migratory bird 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 the emerging wildlife problems.
The Association is concerned with the Administration's proposed
reduction in both the WS operations program and the aquaculture program
for fiscal year 2001. The Administration is requesting that cooperating
entities assume an ever larger share of the costs for WS services at a
time when cooperators are already paying at least 50 percent of the
costs if not more. Many wildlife populations such as predators,
waterfowl, fish-eating birds, deer, and beavers are at all-time highs.
Wildlife conflicts and requests for assistance are also at record
numbers, and State wildlife agencies and the public look to WS for
leadership and professional expertise in dealing with these conflicts.
The Association requests the WS budget be restored to at least the
fiscal year 2000 level for the Operations and Aquaculture line items.
WS can be progressive, responsible and successful only if adequately
funded and staffed. Of additional concern is the near level funding
proposal for Methods Development. Although the fiscal year 2001 budget
contains a $168,000 increase, all but $8,000 of this is for increased
pay costs. Many of the current control tools such as traps and other
restraining devices are becoming less acceptable to the public and are
actually being prohibited in many States because of public referendums.
The only source of new methods is through research. We commend Congress
for recognizing the need to relocate the WS research facility from
Denver to Ft. Collins, Colorado. Hopefully, the research center will be
completed within the next year. However, increased operating and
maintenance costs will then exceed $1 million which is not provided for
in the general appropriation. The Association requests an increase of
at least $2.3 million to the Methods Development line item to
adequately continue nonlethal methods research and address the
increased operating and maintenance costs, with $300,000 being
dedicated for expansion of commercial trap testing in cooperation with
the IAFWA and the State Fish and Wildlife Agencies to help meet and
carry out U.S. international understandings to improve animal welfare
in state regulated wildlife trapping programs.
The Association recognizes the importance of aircraft to WS for
both predator control and the distribution of oral vaccine baits for
rabies control projects and we commend Congress for providing $1.2
million in fiscal year 2000 to WS to continue implementing improved
safety procedures for their aerial operations. However, no increased
funding was proposed in the fiscal year 2001 budget to continue this
effort, and the Association recommends that an additional $1.9 million
be provided to fully implement the safety recommendations contained in
the aerial safety report.
The Association is concerned with recent attempts by various
organizations and individuals in the past several years to
significantly reduce WS's funding for predator control activities in
the western United States. The Association opposes any attempts to
reduce the WS budget through any broad scale or across-the-board
funding cuts for the program or my efforts to reprogram funds from
within. As our wildlife continues to flourish the States need a strong
federal partner in animal damage research and management and it is to
WS that we look for credible, science-based solutions.
The Association is pleased with the accomplishments of the Berryman
Institute at the Utah State University in Logan, Utah. However, we
would like to see the Institute enhance its capabilities to conduct
social science research, expand continuing education programs, and
start a new high quality scientific journal for wildlife damage
management that would be patterned after other established journals. To
reach these new goals, the Association supports an increase of the
funding to the Berryman Institute by an additional $300,000.
The Association commends Congress for increasing the funding in
Montana in fiscal year 2000 by $250,000 to deal with the increasing
wolf-related conflicts. However, wolf conflicts are also increasing in
Minnesota, Wyoming, and Idaho, and the Association requests an
additional $300,000 to deal with these problems in those States as
well.
The Association recommends that Congress make $750,000 available in
fiscal year 2001 to allow WS to continue to implement the new
Management Information Reporting System. The implementation began 2
years ago and will occur over a 5-year period at a total cost of $6-$8
million. The new system will allow WS to provide specific information
on resources protected, damage levels, trend information, and data on
measurements and outcomes now required by the Government Performance
and Results Act.
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, managers, community decision-makers, and the
public. This results in significant benefits to individuals and to the
Nation through building and sustaining a more viable and productive
natural resource base and a competitive and profitable agriculture.
Since over two-thirds of our lands, approximately 1.35 billion acres,
are controlled by over 10 million private landowners and managers, it
is most appropriate that the CSREES-Land Grant System, with its grass
roots credibility and delivery system, be adequately funded to
translate and deliver research-based educational programs and new
technologies to help the Nation's private landowners and managers move
towards a more sustainable society. However, in the President's fiscal
year 2001 budget, we see virtually no emphasis on natural resources
research and education directed toward helping these clientele. In
fact, the total number of farmers based on recent statistics is just
slightly over one million, yet the great majority of CSREES' budget is
devoted to production agriculture with only $3.192 million budgeted for
the Renewable Resources Extension Act to assist the over ten million
private landowners and managers who own and manage most of the nation's
natural resource base. The Association is seriously concerned that this
amount is infinitesimal and totally inadequate in the CSREES proposed
fiscal year 2000 budget of $948.01 million.
IAFWA strongly recommends that the Renewable Resources Extension
Act be funded at a minimum level of $15 million in fiscal year 2001.
The RREA funds, which are apportioned to State Extension Services,
effectively leverage cooperative partnerships at an average of about
four to one, with a focus on the development and dissemination of
useful and practical educational programs to private landowners (rural
and urban) and continuing education of professionals. The increase to
$15 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 today than ever because of the
fragmentation of ownerships, the diversity of landowners needing
assistance, and the increasing environmental concerns of society about
land use. It is important to note that RREA has been reauthorized
through 2002. It 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 funded at a
level beyond $3.4 million. An increase to $15 million would enable the
Extension Service to expand its capability to assist over 500,000
private landowners annually to improve decision-making and management
on an additional 35 million acres while increasing productivity and
revenue by $200 million.
The Association strongly endorses the increase of McIntire-Stennis
Forestry Research funds from $21.93 million to $25 million. The
Association feels that it is essential to the future of all aspects of
forest resource management on non-industrial private forestlands. With
the rapid reduction in timber harvests from public lands, especially in
the west, small private forest ownerships are being depended on for
playing an increasing role in providing the nation's overall timber
supply. This is creating a situation where in many areas of the country
timber harvest is exceeding growth of timber stock on private lands.
These forestlands play a critical role in providing watershed
protection, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities and
environmental quality in both rural and urban communities. There is a
significant need to provide more focus on improved management of small
forest ownerships since they are the key to substantial forest resource
management in the future. Currently there are over 10 million private
landowners, many of whom have yet to realize the need to both manage
and sustain these forests and related natural resource benefits for
both their and society's future. Success in this arena of providing
improved management and sustainability of these forest resources
depends on enhancing research directed towards these ownerships through
the McIntire-Stennis Research program.
The Association notes with satisfaction and support that funding
for water quality integrated programs was increased in the President's
2001 budget by $3.2 million. We are concerned, however, 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 now to help these landowners learn how to prevent and/
or reduce water quality degradation from known sources which are
seriously affecting fisheries and wildlife resources, human health, and
environmental quality of rural and urban communities.
Finally, the Association is further aware of one particular program
contained within the Cooperative States Research, Education, and
Extension Service that is of high priority to several states. The U.S.
Marine Shrimp Farming Program is an integrated multi-state research
program at work in the states of Mississippi, Hawaii, Massachusetts,
Texas, Arizona, and South Carolina. The goal of this program is to
significantly expand the domestic shrimp farming industry, thereby
reducing pressure on wild shrimp stocks and helping to offset the
annual $2.5 billion trade deficit. The Association urges the Congress
to increase the Appropriation in fiscal year 2001 from $3.354 million
to $5 million for fiscal year 2001.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA
On behalf of the Izaak Walton League of America and our 50,000
members and supporters nationwide, I am writing to provide testimony
for the record regarding the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill. The League has a 78-year history of supporting
sustainable agriculture and sound conservation of our nation's natural
resources. Most of our 335 chapters are located in rural areas and a
great many of our members farm as a way of life. Accordingly, our
organization takes a keen interest in the funding levels provided for
natural resource conservation programs administered by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
The subcommittee has, as always, a daunting challenge in allocating
federal dollars among a variety of agencies and many worthwhile
programs. At the same time, we strongly believe that the federal
programs highlighted below are especially deserving of increased
funding levels:
--Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program (WHIP).--The WHIP program,
authorized under the 1996 Farm Bill, provides cost-sharing
assistance to producers who voluntarily undertake efforts to
restore and maintain habitat for fish and wildlife on their
land. Unfortunately, the tremendous potential benefits from
this program have been substantially unrealized due to lack of
funding. We fully support the administration's requested
funding level of $50 million and strongly urge the subcommittee
to make this funding available in fiscal year 2001.
--Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).--EQIP provides
technical, educational and financial assistance to farmers and
ranchers seeking to minimize and mitigate adverse ecological
impacts associated with their present agricultural practices,
such as controlling soil erosion or reducing runoff of animal
wastes into streams. Many producers want to be better stewards
of the land and simply need sound advice and assistance to
implement the necessary changes in their operations. The League
supports the requested increase of $151 million over fiscal
year 2000 enacted levels and encourages the subcommittee to
appropriate $325 million for EQIP.
--Farmland Protection Program (FFP).--Conversion of agricultural
lands into commercial or residential developments is a
significant and growing problem throughout the nation. The FPP
is designed to arrest this problem by providing matching funds
to state, local and tribal governments to permanently protect
agricultural lands. We firmly believe that at least $65 million
in fiscal year 2001 is needed to help preserve agricultural
production capacity, open space, family farms and viable rural
communities.
--Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP).--Wetlands are one of the most
important ecosystem types that exist in the U.S., providing
essential habitat to an incredibly wide variety of fish and
wildlife species. Unfortunately, half of the wetlands in the
lower 48 states have been lost, much of it to conversion to
cropland. WRP provides payments to landowners that voluntarily
retire converted wetlands from production, restore wetland
characteristics and protect it through long-term or permanent
easements. The League urges the subcommittee to provide at
least $286.1 million for WRP in fiscal year 2001 and supports
eliminating the current enrollment cap of 975,000 acres in
order to allow up to 210,000 additional acres to be enrolled in
fiscal year 2001.
--Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).--The CRP is undoubtedly one of
the most successful conservation programs ever conceived. By
paying farmers to retire highly erodible or other
environmentally sensitive land from production for 10 years,
CRP has significantly reduced soil erosion, improved water
quality and provided critical wildlife habitat to a variety of
game and non-game species. The League fully supports the
administration's requested funding level of $126.7 million for
CRP and other reimbursements, as well as increasing the current
enrollment cap by 3.6 million acres (40 million acres in
total).
The stewardship of our natural resources, protection of
environmental quality and the preservation of the family farming and
ranching community within the fabric of American society not only
provides incalculable benefits for the current generation, but also
insures for the prosperous future of generations yet to come. We firmly
believe that these funding levels are not only realistic, but also
vital to the success of accomplishing these important objectives.
In closing, I wish to thank you for your thoughtful consideration
of these views. As the appropriations process moves forward, the League
looks forward to working with you and your staff to insure conservation
of the nation's natural resources and preservation of our outdoor
heritage. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact me at (301) 548-0150, ext. 225.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE JOSLIN DIABETES CENTER
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to submit a statement
for the public witness hearing record. The subject of this short
statement is the continued funding in fiscal year 2001 for the Diabetes
Project in the Extension Service of CREES. We have developed a plan for
fiscal year 2001 that will require $975,000. This includes costs of
Federal Administration, participation expenses of the states of
Washington and Hawaii, and the personnel, equipment and associated
costs of Joslin Diabetes Center within the total cost of the program.
Fiscal year 2000 background
I would like to express Joslin Diabetes Center's sincere
appreciation to you and your colleagues for your leadership in the
fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 appropriations process in
providing $550,000 for each year toward the Diabetes Project. We know
you faced difficult decisions concerning funding priorities. We feel
that your allocation of these funds indicates that you share the vision
of the growing community role and organizational flexibility of the
Extension Service in the 21st Century.
Joslin and Extension personnel are implementing the fiscal year
1999 program. Extension Service officials characterized the concept as
a ``win-win'' program during the first meeting. Extension Service
officials continue to embrace the concept of utilizing components of
Extension's national partnership infrastructure for a pilot program
with Joslin. The National Diabetes Education Program (NDEP), a joint
program of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), both part of the Department of Health and
Human Services, are also involved as components of this project.
Extension officials recognized that Joslin's non-invasive screening
proposal, based on components of the Joslin Vision Network (JVN),
brought an important new facet to the NDEP and services to the rural
health population. The addition of the Joslin pilot program is of
particular importance in providing this new technology to minority
rural residents, who suffer a much higher incidence rate than the
national average.
We have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal
Extension Service upon which to base the full-scale program. We have
submitted a plan of action for year two and are incorporating some
alterations suggested by both States and the Federal Extension
personnel. When the revised plan is completed and approved by
Washington Federal Extension, we will deploy the equipment for
screening for diabetic retinopathy.
Fiscal year 2001 plan
For fiscal year 2001, the mission and objectives for the state
pilot program remain the same as for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year
2000. We are just now implementing the first year of activities, due to
the relatively late obligation dates of the USDA/Extension grant
process. We did not receive fiscal year 1999 funding until October
1999. We are planning to process fiscal year 2000 funds shortly, and
accomplish all tasks before October 1, 2000.
The following will be accomplished by October 1, 2000:
--Training of Washington and Hawaii Extension personnel in equipment
use will have taken place;
--deployment of the diabetes non-invasive screening portion of the
project will be completed;
--educational materials will have been circulated for the specific
target populations of Washington and Hawaii;
--coordination with the NDEP and local and State health officials to
handle referrals will have been established; and
--preliminary baseline comparisons will have been completed for the
first year's operational phase.
The evaluation of the two-year performance, compared with baseline
data, will yield the results of the introduction of the advanced
technology and the advanced medical care and prevention techniques that
are the subject of this project. When similar testimony is provided to
the Committee next year, we hope to have preliminary findings to report
to you on this investment in American rural health and the cooperative
partnership between the Extension Service and Joslin Diabetes Center.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my brief statement. We are submitting
a detailed budget for the fiscal year 2001 funds of $975,000 we are
seeking to the Extension Service for their review. If you or the
Committee have any questions concerning this project, we would be
pleased to meet and discuss the details.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your efforts in fiscal year 2000.
The Extension Service and Joslin Diabetes Center appreciate your
confidence in our capabilities and your focus on the improvement of the
quality of life in rural America. We respectfully request continued
funding of $975,000 in fiscal year 2001 to fully demonstrate the
benefits and potential national returns that can be derived from this
pilot project.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD)
appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony regarding the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) fiscal year 2001 budget, for the
Hearing on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration
and Related Agencies Appropriations. MWD is a public agency created in
1928 to meet supplemental water demands of those people living in what
is now portions of a six-county region of southern California. Today,
the region served by MWD includes 16 million people living on the
coastal plain between Ventura and the international boundary with
Mexico. It is an area larger than the State of Connecticut and, if it
were a separate nation, would rank in the top ten economies of the
world.
Included in our region are more than 225 cities and unincorporated
areas in the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San
Bernardino, and Ventura. We provide more than half the water consumed
in our 5,200-square-mile service area. MWD's water supplies come from
the Colorado River via the district's Colorado River Aqueduct and from
northern California via the State Water Project's California Aqueduct.
INTRODUCTION
MWD continues to favor USDA implementation of conservation
programs, and is especially encouraged by the new actions identified in
the recently released Clean Water Action Plan. The Clean Water Action
Plan fosters integration of efforts by USDA, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and other federal agencies to improve water quality.
MWD firmly believes that inter-agency coordination along with
cooperative conservation programs, that are incentive-based and
facilitate the development of partnerships are critical to addressing
natural resources concerns, such as water quality degradation, wetlands
loss and wildlife habitat destruction. It is vital that Congress
provide USDA with the funding necessary to successfully carry out its
commitment to natural resources conservation.
Our testimony focuses on USDA's conservation programs that are of
major importance to MWD. In particular, MWD urges your full support for
funding for USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).
Full funding for this program is essential for achieving Colorado River
Basin salinity control objectives through the implementation of
salinity control measures as part of EQIP. In addition, MWD requests
your full support for the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program,
Conservation Reserve Program, and Wetlands Reserve Program. Sufficient
federal funding for these USDA programs is necessary to achieve
wildlife habitat restoration and source water quality protection
objectives in the Colorado River Basin and in California's Sacramento/
San Joaquin Bay-Delta (Bay-Delta) estuary.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program provides cost-sharing
and incentive payments, technical assistance and educational assistance
to farmers and ranchers for the implementation of structural practices
(e.g., animal waste management facilities, filterstrips) and land
management practices (e.g., nutrient management, grazing management)
that address the most serious threats to soil, water and related
natural resources. EQIP is to be carried out in a manner that maximizes
environmental benefits per dollar expended. This assistance is focused
in conservation priority areas identified by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service's State Conservationists, in conjunction with
state technical committees and Farm Service Agency personnel. MWD does
have some concern with respect to this aspect of EQIP. Beginning with
the first full year of EQIP funding in 1997, USDA's participation in
the Colorado River Salinity Control Program has significantly
diminished. The mechanism by which funding has been allocated by USDA
to date inherently overlooks projects for which benefits are interstate
and international in nature. Clearly, Colorado River salinity control
has benefits that are not merely local in nature, but continue
downstream and EQIP as it is currently administered by USDA does not
adequately fund national priorities. MWD supports the recommendation of
the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum as a way to remedy this
situation. In Public Law 104-127, Congress amended the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Act to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to
carry out salinity control measures in the Colorado River Basin as part
of EQIP. Sufficient federal funding for implementation of EQIP is
critical in order to achieve Colorado River Basin salinity control
objectives as well as source water quality protection and ecosystem
restoration objectives in the Bay-Delta estuary and watersheds
tributary to the Bay-Delta.
The Colorado River is a large component of Southern California's
regional water supply and its relatively high salinity causes
significant economic impacts on water customers in MWD's service area,
as well as throughout the Lower Colorado River Basin. MWD and the
Bureau of Reclamation completed a Salinity Management Study for
Southern California in June 1999. The first phase of the study
(completed in February 1997) concluded that the high salinity from the
Colorado River causes significant impacts to residential, industrial
and agricultural water users. Furthermore, high salinity adversely
affects the region's progressive water recycling programs, and is
contributing to an adverse salt buildup through infiltration into
Southern California's irreplaceable groundwater basins. In April 1999,
Metropolitan's Board of Directors authorized implementation of a
comprehensive Action Plan to carry out Metropolitan's policy for
management of salinity. The Action Plan focuses on reducing salinity
concentrations in Southern California's water supplies through
collaborative actions with pertinent agencies, recognizing that an
effective solution requires a regional commitment. Metropolitan, the
Association of Groundwater Agencies, the Southern California
Association of Publicly Owned Treatment Works, and the WateReuse
Association of California have executed a Memorandum of Understanding
agreeing to the formation of a Salinity Management Coalition. Based on
a 1988 study, Reclamation estimated that water users in the Lower Basin
were experiencing in excess of $750 million in annual impacts from
salinity levels in the river in 1995, and that impacts would
progressively increase with continued agricultural and urban
development upstream of California's points of diversion. As part of
the Salinity Management Study, the economic impacts have been refined
for MWD's service area and have been submitted to Reclamation for its
use in updating its Lower Basin estimate. Droughts will cause spikes in
salinity levels that will be highly disruptive to Southern California
water management and commerce. The Salinity Control Program has proven
to be a very cost-effective approach to help to mitigate the impacts of
higher salinity. Adequate federal funding of the program is essential.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), the
interstate organization responsible for coordinating the Basin states'
salinity control efforts, issued its 1999 Review, Water Quality
Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System (1999 Review) in June of
1999. The 1999 Review found that additional salinity control was
necessary with normal water supply conditions beginning in 1994 to meet
the numeric criteria in the water quality standards adopted by the
seven Colorado River Basin states and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. For the last seven years (1994-2000), funding for USDA's
salinity control program has not equaled the Forum-identified funding
need for the portion of the program the Federal Government has the
responsibility to implement. It is essential that implementation of
Colorado River Basin salinity control efforts through EQIP be
accelerated to permit the numeric criteria to be met again under
average annual long-term water supply conditions, making up the
shortfall. The Basin states and farmers stand ready to pay their share
of the implementation costs of EQIP.
The President's proposed fiscal year 2001 budget contains program
funding of $350 million for implementation of EQIP through financing
provided by the Commodity Credit Corporation. MWD supports this level
of EQIP funding. The Forum has determined that allocation of $12
million in EQIP funds in fiscal year 2001 is needed for on-farm
measures to control Colorado River salinity. This level of funding is
necessary to meet the salinity control activities schedule to maintain
the state adopted and federally approved water quality standards.
MWD also supports the proposed level of funding for Conservation
Technical Assistance (CTA) included within the Natural Resources
Conservation Service's (NRCS) Conservation Operations Program.
Conservation technical assistance provides the foundation for
implementation of EQIP and other conservation programs. We are pleased
that the CTA budget includes $87 million in funding to assist Animal
Feeding Operations (AFO) in reducing their water quality impacts. AFOs
are a potential source of Cryptosporidium, a pathogen that is only
partially removed by conventional drinking water treatment technology.
Minimizing loadings at the source is important to ensure safe and
healthy drinking water supplies.
MWD urges you and your Subcommittee to support full funding for
EQIP and NRCS CTA as requested in the President's fiscal year 2001
budget for USDA, with the specific designation of EQIP funds to the
Salinity Control Program. MWD also recommends that the Colorado River
Basin be designated as a national priority area for salinity control.
WILDLIFE HABITAT INCENTIVES PROGRAM
The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) is a voluntary
program, providing technical assistance and cost-sharing, to help
landowners develop habitat on their properties that will support
wetland wildlife, upland wildlife, threatened and endangered species,
fisheries, and other types of wildlife. WHIP offers an opportunity to
encourage development of improved wildlife habitat on eligible lands by
providing assistance to landowners who wish to integrate wildlife
considerations into the overall management of their operations.
WHIP cost-sharing assistance could be utilized to support ongoing
interim conservation efforts both in the Bay-Delta estuary and for the
Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program. The CALFED
Bay-Delta Program is a cooperative effort among state and federal
agencies and the public to develop a long-term, comprehensive solution
to ecosystem and water supply problems in the Bay-Delta. One of the
main objectives of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program is to improve and
increase aquatic, wetland and riparian habitats so that they can
support sustainable populations of wildlife species, by implementing a
system-wide ecosystem restoration approach. WHIP could benefit this
program by providing cost-share assistance for the development of
wildlife habitat on private lands in the Bay-Delta watershed.
The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (LCR
MSCP) is a broad-based partnership of state, federal and private
entities in Arizona, California, and Nevada. Participants include
water, hydroelectric power and wildlife resource management agencies,
Tribal governments, and environmental organizations with interests in
the Lower Colorado River. The LCR MSCP is focusing on the conservation
of over 70 threatened, endangered and sensitive species and their
habitats. WHIP would allow the combination of federal cost-sharing
dollars and voluntary agricultural land-use practices to enhance
habitat for listed and sensitive species of interest in the Lower
Colorado River. This could be a valuable vehicle for gaining further
agricultural support for conservation efforts and the goals of the LCR
MSCP.
The President's budget requests $50 million for WHIP for fiscal
year 2001. MWD recommends that you and your Subcommittee support
continued funding of WHIP at the level requested in the President's
fiscal year 2001 budget for USDA.
CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM
Continued support for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is
necessary in order to build on the past successes of this USDA
conservation program. Under the CRP, incentive payments are provided to
producers to remove highly erodible and other environmentally sensitive
land from production. This program helps protect the quality of
drinking water supplies and facilitates ecosystem restoration efforts
by reducing soil erosion, improving water quality, protecting wildlife
habitats, and achieving other natural resource conservation measures.
The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program and National Conservation
Buffer Initiative will further encourage enrollment of high
environmental-value acreage. We are pleased that the fiscal year 2001
budget provides financial incentives of up to $125 million annually for
producers who enroll in CRP continuous signup programs such as these.
Enrollment of eligible agricultural lands that are located in the
Bay-Delta estuary and tributary watersheds in the CRP, could provide
water quality improvement benefits for this important source of
drinking water. We note, however, that the method which determines the
rental rate for CRP enrollments effectively precludes the enrollment of
much irrigated agricultural land and land with high value crops. As a
result, states in the arid west do not benefit from the CRP in
proportion to their contribution to agricultural production. While MWD
urges you and your Subcommittee to support the President's budget
request for the CRP of $1.742 billion for fiscal year 2001, we also
strongly request that you review the method for rental rate
determination.
WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM
The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), first authorized in 1990, is a
voluntary program providing incentives to landowners for the
restoration and protection of wetlands with long-term or permanent
easements. Wetlands restoration provides important water quality
improvement and wildlife habitat restoration benefits that are
important to the Bay-Delta estuary. MWD urges you and your Subcommittee
to support appropriation of $286 million for the WRP in fiscal year
2001, as requested in the President's budget. We further support the
removal of the acreage cap and the proposal to enroll 250,000 acres
annually.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for your consideration of our testimony. We believe our
comments emphasize the importance of continued funding for USDA's
agricultural conservation programs. The USDA's conservation programs
are critical for achieving Colorado River Basin salinity control
objectives, as well as broader wildlife habitat restoration and source
water quality protection objectives in the Colorado River Basin and the
Bay-Delta estuary.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MINOR CROP FARMER ALLIANCE
The Minor Crop Farmer Alliance (MCFA) is a coalition of individual
firms and organizations representing agricultural producers who grow
and market minor-use agricultural commodities or utilize minor-use
materials. MCFA was organized in 1991 to address industry concerns
about pesticide manufacturers' voluntary cancellation of agricultural
pesticides and the accelerating loss of important crop protection
tools. MCFA's primary focus today is implementation of the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA). Over 100 organizations representing the majority
of our nation's fruit and vegetable producers support MCFA's efforts.
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) implementation of
FQPA may result in the phase-out of many of the most important
pesticides used in the minor-use industry. Those industries provide the
majority of fruits and vegetables consumed in the United States. The
minor-use industry is gravely concerned that EPA will unnecessarily
cancel pesticides that are essential for the production of those crops.
It is imperative that adequate research and pest management programs be
made available to lessen the potential devastating impact of FQPA
implementation.
USDA has a critical role in the implementation of FQPA. It provides
input to EPA in the development of policies, the conduct of risk
assessments, and the impact of EPA's decisions on agriculture,
including the minor-use community. It is vital to the long-term well-
being of this nation's agricultural industry that USDA meet the
challenges presented by FQPA, and that it fully participate in the FQPA
implementation program.
MCFA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's (USDA) appropriations for fiscal year 2001. Our
testimony focuses on USDA programs that are involved in the FQPA
implementation process, including, but not limited to, providing
critical data for fair and reasonable assessment of pesticides and
conducting important research that is needed to develop alternative
pest management strategies.
SPECIFIC FUNDING REQUEST
MCFA strongly supports full funding for the following programs
intended to facilitate fair FQPA implementation, and to offset its
anticipated negative impact on minor-use industries.
--$14 million for the Pesticide Data Program (PDP) administered by
the Agricultural Marketing Service;
--$3.2 million for the National Agricultural Statistics Service
pesticide-usage surveys;
--$2.6 million for the Office of Pest Management Policy administered
by the Agricultural Research Service;
--$12.2 million for the Integrated Pest Management Research Grant
Program administered by the Cooperative State Research,
Extension and Education Service (CSREES); and
--$18 million for the Pesticide Impact Assessment Program, Crops at
Risk and Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Program also
administered by CSREES.
Members of the Minor Crop Farmer Alliance include the following
organizations and firms:
A Duda & Sons, Alger Farms, American Dehydrated Onion & Garlic,
American Farm Bureau Federation, American Mosquito Control Association,
American Nursery and Landscape Association, American Seed Association,
Atlantic County Board of Agriculture, Brewster Heights Packing,
California Ag Issues Forum, California Avocado Commission, California
Canning Peach Association, California Cherry Advisory Board, California
Citrus Mutual, California Citrus Quality Council, California Cut Flower
Commission, California Farm Bureau Federation, California Fig Advisory
Board, California Grape & Tree Fruit League, California Pistachio
Commission, California Prune Board, California Seed Association,
California Strawberry Commission, California Tree Fruit Agreement,
Cherry Marketing Institute, Consumer Produce Company, Cranberry
Institute, D'Arrigo Brothers, DeBruyn Produce Company, Del Monte Foods,
Diamond Produce, Dried Fruit Association of California, Florida Citrus
Mutual, Florida Citrus Packers, Florida Farm Bureau Federation, Florida
Nurserymen & Growers Association, Florida Fruit & Vegetable
Association, Frank Capurra & Sons, Fresh Produce & Floral Council,
Grower Shipper Vegetable Association of Central California,
Hillsborough County Farm Bureau (Florida), Holden Wallace, Inc., Idaho
Potato Commission, Interstate Fruit & Vegetable Company, Lee County
Mosquito Control District, Major Farms, McManus-Wyatt-Hidalgo Produce
Marketing Company, Merrill Farms, Michigan Asparagus and Plum Advisory
Board, Michigan Celery Promotion Cooperative, Inc., Michigan Farm
Bureau, Michigan Onion Committee, Michigan Vegetable Council, National
Christmas Tree Association, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives,
National Food Processors Association, National Onion Association,
National Potato Council, National Watermelon Association, New York
State Vegetable Growers Association, North American Strawberry Growers
Association, North Central Washington Fieldman's Association, Northwest
Food Processors Association, Northwest Horticultural Council, Ocean
Mist Farms, Ocean Spray, Ohio Fruit Growers Society, Ohio Vegetable &
Potato Growers Association, Oregon Raspberry & Blackberry Commission,
Ostrom Farms, Pacific Coast Canned Pear Service, Pacific Seedmen's
Association, Processed Tomato Foundation, Pear Advisory Board, Pear
Bureau Northwest, Produce Marketing Association, R.C. Farms, Rio Grande
Okra Sales, Inc., Rio Queen, Inc., Robert Ruiz, Inc., Roses Inc.,
Society of American Florists, SoilServ, Inc., South Carolina Tomato
Growers Association, Starr Produce Company, Tanimura & Antle, Inc.,
Texas Citrus Mutual, Texas Nursery & Landscape Association, Texas
Produce Association, Texas Vegetable Association, Tree Top, Inc., U.S.
Apple Association, U.S. Canola Association, U.S. Hop Industry Plant
Protection Committee, United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association. USA
Dry Pea & Lentil Council, Val Verde Vegetable Company, Valley Fruit &
Vegetable Company, Virginia Farm Bureau Federation, Washington Hop
Commission, Washington State Horticultural Association, Washington
State Potato Commission, Western Growers Association, Western
Washington Farm Crops, Wiesehan Farms, Inc., Wild Blueberry Commission
of Maine, Wisconsin Ginseng Growers Association, and Yakima Pomological
Club.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the Coalition of
EPSCoR States \1\ regarding the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (USDA EPSCoR).
USDA EPSCoR is extremely important to agricultural research in the
state of Mississippi and in our nation. I appreciate the opportunity to
submit this testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Puerto Rico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and
Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would also like to extend my appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman,
for your strong support of USDA EPSCoR. This important program is
having a significant impact in Mississippi and in the other USDA EPSCoR
states. Your support and the support of this Subcommittee have been
absolutely crucial in establishing and maintaining this important
program. Mr. Chairman, those of us committed to improving Mississippi's
research and development capability deeply appreciate your support and
your effort. Thank you for your fine work representing Mississippi in
the United States Senate.
Seven federal agencies have EPSCoR or EPSCoR-like programs,
including USDA. EPSCoR works to improve our country's science and
technology capability by funding activities of talented researchers in
states that have historically not received significant federal R&D
funding. USDA EPSCoR was established in fiscal year 1992 with a goal of
increasing the amount of agricultural research at academic institutions
within states that have received limited competitive funding from USDA.
The Mississippi EPSCoR program began in 1988 with the naming of the
state EPSCoR Committee by the Governor. Mississippi EPSCoR obtained its
first funding in 1989 from USDA EPSCoR's sister program in the National
Science Foundation. Since that time, EPSCoR has had an enormously
positive impact within the state and at the four research institutions
and their affiliates.
Because of the multi-institutional framework of EPSCoR and of the
commitment of the state EPSCoR Committee to creating a critical mass of
scientists and engineers around specific issues as well as a more fully
developed statewide infrastructure, Mississippi EPSCoR has produced a
stronger, more competitive research community and closer working
relationships among the institutions that participate in the federal
EPSCoR programs: Jackson State University, Mississippi State
University, the University of Mississippi, the University of Southern
Mississippi, and the University of Mississippi Medical Center.
Mr. Chairman, USDA EPSCoR is helping to improve the quality and
competitiveness of agriculture research in Mississippi. Since the
program was established in 1992, a number of Mississippi researchers
have received USDA EPSCoR Strengthening Awards. These investigators
have been located at Mississippi State University, the University of
Mississippi Medical Center, and the University of Southern Mississippi.
Important examples of Mississippi's research include studies in
such areas as: kenaf processing, which is a potential economic
opportunity for rural states; rapid detection of E coli, an important
factor in food safety; and disease mechanisms in channel catfish, which
impacts a significant cash crop across the southern part of the
country. These projects and many, many others address issues important
to rural states and to the rest of the nation. USDA EPSCoR allows
researchers across our country to contribute to our economy and our
agricultural research knowledge base.
USDA EPSCoR states are those whose funding ranks no higher than the
40th percentile of all states, based on a three year rolling average,
but excluding strengthening set-aside funds. For fiscal year 2000, the
following states are eligible: Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware,
Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico. Let me stress that EPSCoR relies on rigorous merit review
in order to ensure that it funds only high-quality research.
USDA makes four types of competitive awards through USDA EPSCoR:
Research Career Enhancement Awards, Equipment Grants, Seed Grants, and
Strengthening Standard Research Project Awards. Proposals must be
related to the program priorities of the National Research Initiative
Competitive Grants Program, which address critical issues facing
agriculture today.
--Research Career Enhancement Awards help faculty enhance their
research capabilities by funding sabbatical leaves. Applicants
may not have received a NRICGP competitive research grant
within the past five years.
--Equipment Grants strengthen the research capacity of institutions
in USDA EPSCoR states. The grant cannot exceed 50 percent of
the cost of the equipment, or $50,000, whichever is less. The
principal investigator for this grant is responsible for
securing non-Federal matching funds.
--Seed Grants enable researchers to collect preliminary data in
preparation for applying for a standard research grant. Seed
Grant awards are limited to a total cost of $75,000, including
indirect costs, for two years and are non-renewable. Applicants
must indicate how the research will enhance future
competitiveness in applying for standard research grants.
--Strengthening Standard Research Project Awards fund standard
research projects of investigators who have not received a
NRICGP grant within the past five years.
Through USDA EPSCoR, Mississippi and the other USDA EPSCoR States
contribute more effectively to our nation's science and technology
capability, and help provide our country with needed, high-quality,
peer-reviewed research. This program allows all regions of our country
to contribute to our nation's science and technology capability while
allowing flexibility to meet regional research needs. USDA EPSCoR is a
sound investment of taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee has for several years directed USDA
to set aside 10 percent of USDA NRICGP funds for USDA EPSCoR. Those
funds have provided significant opportunity and significant success in
Mississippi and the other EPSCoR states. I request that the
Subcommittee once again include report language directing USDA to set
aside 10 percent of its NRI competitive grant funds in fiscal year 2001
for an EPSCoR program. These funds will allow the EPSCoR states to
continue providing for the agricultural research needs of rural America
and of our nation.
I thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit this
testimony.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL AVIATION ASSOCIATION
The National Agricultural Aviation Association requests that the
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies of the Senate Appropriations
Committee include a line item of $1.3 million in its fiscal year 2001
Agricultural Spending Bill for the USDA--Agricultural Research
Service's (ARS) Aerial Application Technology Program in College
Station, Texas. This program is of tremendous value to agriculture and
the environment.
Aerial application is a vital service for America's farmers
enabling them to produce a safe, abundant and affordable supply of food
and fiber for the nation and the world. Aerial application accounts for
about 25 percent of crop protection spray applications and nearly 100
percent of forest protection applications. It also is used to protect
human health from the spread of airborne viruses and disease.
Furthermore, aerial application permits large areas to be covered
rapidly, thus ensuring timely and effective applications. When soil
conditions and crop foliage prohibit the use of ground machines, aerial
application is the only feasible method of treating crops.
The Aerial Application Technology Program at College Station Texas
is nationally recognized for conducting innovative research to make
aerial application more efficient, effective and precise. Technologies
have been developed at the facility that significantly mitigates spray
drift and enables less crop protection product to be used more
effectively. The continued implementation of environmental safeguards
in which the agricultural industry must comply, coupled with the
necessity of aerial application for American agriculture, underscores
the need to augment the efforts of the USDA--ARS Aerial Application
Technology Program where research supporting this balance is conducted.
The $1.3 million line-item in the fiscal year 2001 Agricultural
Spending Bill will ensure that valuable aerial application technology
research continue at the ARS College Station, Texas facility.
Increased research funding for the Aerial Application Technology
Program is supported by a large and diverse coalition of agricultural
groups that recognize the important role the Program plays in safely
and effectively contributing to our nation's agricultural producers.
These groups include the Agricultural Retailers Association, the
American Crop Protection Association, the American Farm Bureau
Federation, the American Sugarbeet Growers Association, the National
Association of Wheat Growers, the National Corn Growers Association,
the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, and the U.S.A. Rice
Federation.
We appreciate your consideration of this important issue.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR FOOD SAFETY
Thank you, Chairman Cochran and members of the Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee for the opportunity to share with you
information about the National Alliance for Food Safety. My name is
Lonnie King and I am the chairman of the NAFS.
Food safety issues present us with complex and difficult
challenges--shifting demographics, growing susceptible populations,
changing production systems, new emerging pathogens, changes in the
nature of foods, increasing importation of foods, and shifting dietary
preferences. All these challenges have combined to inextricably change
the landscape for both our food system and our food safety system.
In an effort to address the difficult and complex issues of
ensuring a safe food supply, different strategies, alliances and
essentially different ways of working will be needed to produce
sustainable progress and useful results. Based on this national need,
the concept of a broad-based, integrated partnership for research and
education arose in the form of the NAFS.
The National Alliance for Food Safety--A Partnership for the
Science of Safe Food--was established for the purpose of creating
research and education programs that address issues and problems in
food safety. The activities of the NAFS are oriented toward enhancement
of public health and prevention of foodborne illness in response to the
emergence of food safety as a prominent area of concern for the
American public in recent years.
Twenty-five universities have joined with the Agricultural Research
Service to comprise NAFS so that the organization may make the most
efficient use of available resources. The work of the NAFS pursues this
mission: to continually improve the safety of our food supply to ensure
the public's health and to enhance our national and international food
systems.
The NAFS represents a collective of over 500 researchers and
scientists who offer an unprecedented portfolio of products, services,
and expertise in research and educational programs. The NAFS also
represents a new operative built on the philosophy of creative
collaboration. This collaboration is enhanced through the many
disciplines and areas of expertise of the scientists. In addition, the
diversity of the Alliance's member institutions is a unique and
compelling strength. This diversity enables researchers to compare and
contrast a wide variety of production systems and climatic and
environmental conditions across the U.S.
The partnering institutions strongly believe that together we will:
help formulate and focus on the top research priorities; prevent
duplication of effort; form synergies through multidisciplinary and
cross-university food safety teams and centers of expertise; and, align
our outstanding and substantial resources, facilities, and intellect
toward a national, integrated research and educational blueprint
directed at the assurance of a safe food supply. Finally, the NAFS will
also assure the highest applicability of its activities to resolving
critical food safety problems of greatest national need and delivering
products, services, and information of the highest scientific merit
The NAFS membership stretches from coast to coast. Its member
universities are Clemson University, Cornell University, Georgetown
University, Iowa State University, Kansas State University, Michigan
State University, Mississippi State University, North Carolina State
University, North Dakota State University, Pennsylvania State
University, Purdue University, Texas A&M University, University of
Arkansas, University of California-Davis, University of Florida,
University of Georgia, University of Idaho, University of Illinois,
University of Maryland-College Park, University of Maryland-Eastern
Shore, University of Nebraska, University of Tennessee, University of
Wisconsin, Virginia Tech University and Washington State University.
These universities have bound themselves together with the Agricultural
Research Service around the common goal of ensuring the safest possible
food supply for the consumer.
The member universities bring to the NAFS a strong base of
scientific expertise in food safety with several components. The
members use their respective components to form the basis for
collaborations with their counterparts at other universities and at
ARS. The geographical diversity of the NAFS members provides for a mix
of climatic conditions, soil and vegetation types and farm and handling
practices representative of the whole nation.
The role of the NAFS is to use its capacity to foster strong
working partnerships to deal with food safety issues. No single
research and education establishment in the nation has the intellectual
capacity nor the infrastructure to address the problem in its entirety.
Working as partners, the members of NAFS can bring sophisticated
problem-solving research activity to food safety questions unmatched by
any other entity.
The NAFS has begun its work with the recent request for proposals
from its members. The Agricultural Research Service received a fiscal
year 2000 appropriation increase for cooperative research with NAFS
member institutions for food safety research on E. coli O157:H7 and
Listeria monocytogenes. Collaboration among NAFS and ARS scientists was
a requirement for all successful proposals. Strong encouragement was
given toward the submission of proposals of collaborations among
multiple NAFS members and ARS scientists.
The NAFS looks to the long term for opportunities to use its
capabilities. Its research strengths center on several commodities:
muscle foods, minimally processed foods, fruits, vegetables, dairy
products, cereals and grains, aquaculture, seafood and egg products.
NAFS members' expertise is in disciplines including epidemiology,
toxicology, risk assessment, microbiology, virology, medicine, clinical
research and health outcomes.
Research priorities for NAFS include isolation and detection
methodology, surveillance, emerging pathogens, traceback of hazards,
risk analysis and modeling, rapid methods of pathogen detection,
antimicrobial resistance, methods of pathogen reduction, intervention
strategies, mechanisms of pathogenicity and food toxicology.
The goal of NAFS is to initiate food safety projects assuring the
highest applicability to food safety problems and being of the highest
scientific merit. The specific goals and objectives of the NAFS are to:
--Meet the emerging food safety needs of industry in the areas of
food production, processing, transportation, retail and food
service;
--Address global issues in food safety related to the international
marketing of U.S. agricultural products and enhance the safety
of foods imported into the United States;
--Develop prevention and intervention strategies that will facilitate
the continued production of healthy animals and safe plant-
derived foodstuffs;
--Conduct research to enhance the safety of food products in the food
service and retail environment, including market distribution;
--Communicate with the public regarding food safety research and
implementation of technology for food products from production
through the marketing chain to the consumer;
--Develop a framework for improving risk assessment and risk
management information communication through a combination of
resources including health, medical and epidemiological
research programs;
--Increase our understanding of pathogens in the environment and
food, including their prevalence, survival and adaptability
under various conditions, and emergence of virulent strains;
--Address issues such as the role of food animals in the development
of antibiotic resistant human pathogens.
NAFS is now functioning with the support of funds made available
last year through ARS. Collaborators from several NAFS universities and
ARS are responding to calls for new research initiatives. This support
from Congress has been a vital first step in the life of NAFS. NAFS
respectfully requests continued support from Congress so that it may
expand its work to cover the many areas listed above.
The National Alliance for Food Safety requests $5 million for
fiscal year 2001. We strongly urge the Congress to approve this step
toward the maturity of NAFS as a research organization as NAFS pursues
its mission.
The NAFS contains the necessary elements to avoid duplications of
effort and to encourage well-organized teamwork. The Agricultural
Research Service, working as a full partner, promises to be a valuable
asset toward the success of NAFS. The members believe that their
collaborations will result in a credible response to the congressional
call for greater cooperation and elimination of redundancy in
scientific research. The NAFS, with one of the most potent arrays of
research institutions assembled toward achievement of a common goal,
pledges continued careful and credible use of food-safety research
funds allocated to the academic and government agency sectors.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITY AND
LAND-GRANT COLLEGES
introduction
From Alaska to Puerto Rico, scientists, educators and extension
personnel in 106 Land-Grant colleges and universities across America
have a unique partnership with the Department of Agriculture's
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (USDA/
CSREES). This partnership makes it possible to address critical
national issues at the local level. We are requesting an increase of
$191 million over fiscal year 2000. Below is a table highlight the
increased areas.
[In millions of dollars]
Funding highlights
Base formula funds (Research and Extension)....................... 50
National Extension Priorities..................................... 20
Native American and Hispanic Serving Institution funding.......... 9
1890 Institution Facilities Improvements.......................... 3
National Research Initiative...................................... 30
Integrated Research, Extension, Education......................... 43
International Science and Education Grant Program................. 8
Extension and Research Initiatives................................ 13
Investment in Students............................................ 15
______
Total proposed increases over fiscal year 2000.............. 191
With this investment, Land-Grant Institutions will be given the
foundation to continue to make great strides in research and deliver
important information from this research to the public. The following
is divided into three sections. First, I describe the initiatives the
Land-Grant System would like to continued from fiscal year 2000 not
included in the above table. Second, I detail our goals within USDA/
CSREES as reflected in the table. Finally, I explain the issue areas
that cross across two or more federal agencies that the land-grant
community needs funding in order to become full partners in ongoing
projects which are also reflected in the above table.
INITIATIVES
Initiative For Future Agriculture And Food Systems
We envision a dynamic future agricultural science program to grow
from the seed of this ``New Initiative'' into an exciting new
``National Institutes of Agricultural Science model.'' This new
approach will focus the nation's important scientific research,
education and outreach into a unified architecture, similar to that
performed by the NIH for the important human medical and other health
related sciences. Currently, this funding is being used for research,
extension or education grants to address critical emerging agricultural
issues related to future food production, environmental protection,
farm income and for activities carried out under the Alternative
Agricultural Research and Commercialization Act of 1990. Priority is
given to projects that are multi-state, multi-institutional, or
multidisciplinary and to projects that integrate agricultural research,
extension and education. Funds are awarded competitively to address
priority mission areas related to food genome, food safety, food
technology, human nutrition, new alternative uses and production of
agricultural commodities and products, agricultural biotechnology, and
natural resource management, including precision agriculture. We
support continuation of this program in fiscal year 2001 at last year's
level.
Fund For Rural America
No one can ignore the economic realities found in rural America
today. The Fund for Rural America includes a component that provides
for integrated research, education and extension to address the most
pressing issues of rural America. The fund unites the many rural
development efforts of the department into one strategy aimed at
addressing the most pressing needs in rural America and improving the
quality of life for these citizens. This research and extension
component of the program helps communities use science to solve real
world rural challenges--from conservation to hunger to farm
profitability. We support continuation of this program in fiscal year
2001 at last year's level.
LAND GRANT ISSUES WITHIN USDA/CSREES
Investing in farmers and ranchers
As discussed in the earlier section on ``Supporting partnerships to
address national issues at the local level,'' there is a great need to
invest in research and extension to assist all farmers and ranchers as
they struggle through difficult economic times. Small and medium size
farmers are facing some special challenges. Currently about 92 percent
of American farms and ranches are classified as small or mid-sized with
gross annual sales of less than $250,000. These operations account for
approximately 34 percent of agricultural production. Small and mid-
sized operations support small communities, local businesses, and
produce innovations for agricultural enterprises. We cannot allow these
operations to fail. There is a real need for risk management education
and options as decision-making tools for farmers, ranchers, and their
families. Annual one-time support payments must be replaced with
programs to develop longer-term planning and management skills. Efforts
are underway to strengthen Extension's ability to provide risk
management education to farmers and ranchers searching for answers
during this farm crisis. In addition, we propose the Food and
Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) and its consortium of
related universities, be established as a Policy Research Center as
envisioned under Section 224 of the Agricultural Research, Extension,
and Education Reform Act of 1998 and Section 807 of the FAIR Act. FAPRI
delivers a product, which is used regularly on a national basis and
provides Congress and other decision makers with high quality,
carefully reviewed, objective policy analysis.
Investing in Food Safety
In the U.S., 6.5 million cases of food-borne illness are reported
each year, but the government estimates that there may be more than 33
million actual cases. The annual domestic cost of food-borne illness is
estimated at $23 billion. Safe food depends upon broad-based
understanding of the causes of food-borne illness, paths to prevention,
and commitment to preventive practices employed by producers,
processors, handlers and consumers. Better methods for analyzing
available data and addressing any uncertainty among the public is
critically needed. Research examining risk assessment, new emerging
diseases, safety of food imports, new processing techniques, research
on the actual causes and prevention of food-borne illnesses as well as
education on how to handle food will not only save lives, but also save
money. We support sustained funding to identify the critical points of
food contamination through targeted research, extension, and education
programs.
Investing in Nutrition
Capacity to learn and to contribute to society is traced directly
to the quality of health and nutrition from prenatal status through
adulthood. Assuring a healthy, well-nourished population required
continuing efforts toward development of quality research information
on nutrient function for maintenance of optimal health, understanding
the availability and bio-availability of food for all population
groups, especially those at greater risk for nutrition-related
diseases, e.g., infants, elderly, new immigrant groups. Using foods to
treat diseases is a major component of an active and progressive
nutrition research program. Nutrition education incorporating this
research is also needed. This education should include knowledge of how
to secure foods to provide adequate nutrition to families with a
commitment to dietary guidelines. Therefore, we support sustained
funding for the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program.
Investing in the Environment
EPA and USDA have recently developed a draft, ``Unified National
Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations.'' In addition, federal
legislation such as the Clean Water Act, state legislation and other
administrative actions have addressed the issue of agricultural waste.
There is an urgency to develop science-based practices and educational
programs that address waste management challenges. Funding that allows
universities to identify alternative technologies and practices for
pesticide management, address water quality and soil nutrient
management, and develop models of improved livestock waste management
is vital and allows the Land-Grant University System, working with USDA
and EPA, to make significant contributions.
Investing in Renewable Resources
Between five million and ten million private timberland owners turn
to the Land-Grant University System as their main source for education
information. With the loss of cutting rights in the West, private
forest landowners will be under tremendous pressure to produce forest
products for houses, furniture, paper, ect. These are products
Americans use daily and the demand increases steadily. Today, ten
percent more timber is cut than grown. Education is needed to get
landowners, particularly private landowners, to replant and protect
their timber. The number of forest landowners increases each year;
thus, the need for educational services increases. In order to protect
our land and timber supply, we support significant increases to the
Renewable Resources Extension Act.
Also, research and extension education is needed on grazing and
pasturelands to fully utilize their renewable resources. Each year we
rely on over 600 million acres of grazing and pastureland to provide 57
percent of the feed energy for the nation's single largest agricultural
economic sector, livestock. Reduced cost of production is imperative
for this industry to survive and compete. Fragmentation of once
contiguous tracts of grazing and pasturelands, especially near urban
and suburban settings, has increased the level of human disturbance;
thus, amplifying the need for scientific solutions to biological,
physical, and social issues.
Investing in Children, Youth and Families
The strength of much of American agriculture depends upon the
family and associated community life. Major changes in the structure of
agriculture (including consolidations of concentration) are threatening
the community systems that support families and make rural life
attractive. The viability of American agriculture requires investment
in those systems that sustain quality family life. These systems
include viable communities, schools, medical services, childcare,
technology and jobs, to name a few. The Cooperative Extension Service
programs in Land-Grant Universities deliver community-based programs
that are designed to help children and their families solve many of
their own problems. Highly successful programs address parenting
skills, building family strengths, community leadership development,
health and nutrition education, workforce education, positive youth
development and more. Strong continuing support of successful programs
as well as new innovations are needed.
Investing in New Markets and Quality Communities
Many Americans in both rural and urban communities continue to be
significantly poorer, less healthy, and much more likely to suffer from
the multiple challenges inherent in persistent economic, social,
institutional, and equity capital in most rural communities and many
urban centers. CSREES research, education and extension programs seek
to enhance the quality of life in under-served communities through
education and training (Quality Knowledge), research and development
(Quality Information) and extension and outreach (Quality Place-Based
Solutions to Local Real-World Challenges). Our goal is to build a
bridge between rural and urban citizens and bring all Americans into
the economic mainstream. To further the rural mission, the Land-Grant
System proposes that the Rural Policy Research Institute (RUPRI) be
funded as the National Rural Policy Research Institute through a new
CSREES budget line item. This would provide RUPRI with the ongoing
infrastructure to sustain and expand core operations and rural policy
research capabilities. In addition, we propose an increase in funding
to the four Regional Rural Development Centers throughout the country.
These centers provide much needed research and education to decision
makers in rural communities. Their services can address the changing
economic infrastructure in rural America and facilitate leadership
development programs for community leaders and elected officials that
will help these public leaders address the difficult issues facing
rural communities. Similarly, a major new investment is needed to
address the economic and social infrastructure issues specific to
impoverished urban and suburban populations to empower them to enter
the mainstream of American life. Model research and extension programs
currently addressing these urban problems need enhancement and
replication across the nation.
CROSSCUTTING ISSUES
Investing in the 1890 and 1994 Land-Grant Institutions and other
minority serving colleges
The 1890 and 1994 Land-Grant Universities, together with the
Hispanic-Serving Institutions, comprise a unique and rich asset. These
institutions with their multicultural depth enrich the research,
extension and education programs of the Department. The focus on these
institutions at this time is crucial. A primary goal of the Department
is to improve minority access to USDA programs. Strengthening minority
serving institutions and making them equal partners in the Land-Grant
System are the key elements to accomplishing this goal. These
universities need a significant boost in infrastructure investment to
fully participate and compete for research, extension and education
funding. Therefore, we are proposing a significant increase in the
appropriate funding mechanisms relevant to each group of these
institutions.
Supporting partnerships to address national issues at the local level
The research, education and outreach that the Land-Grand System
provides, should be an essential part of our response to the farm
crisis. Emergency relief can help farmers in the short run, but in the
long run, the diversity of our farm sector cannot survive without
strong and unbiased research and development, produced and disseminated
in a way that is accessible to producers on an unbiased basis. There
are five areas in which the Land-Grant System can help farmers,
ranchers and forest land owners succeed globally in the new century.
These areas are: small farm competitiveness; marketing skills and
technology; new product development; risk management education; and
natural resource management. We strongly support increases in base
funding for the Land-Grant System to continue and expand efforts to
support farmers and ranchers.
Investing in students
The changing structure of American agriculture in a global economy,
the major and rapid advances in genomics and biotechnology, shortages
of skilled labor, and the growing economic gap between small and mid-
sized farms and large corporate entities require important changes in
education for those who produce and process food and fiber. Funding
must be available to enable universities to broaden their curricula;
promote faculty development; strengthen student research projects; and
increase the number of new scholars, including minority graduate
students, recruited in the food and agricultural sciences. Investing in
higher education allows universities to build the human capacity to
carry agricultural science in the next century.
Globalizing U.S. university agricultural teaching, research, and
extension programs
Global forces are rapidly transforming U.S. agriculture. Several
evident forms of this transformation are: (1) regional and world trade
agreements which broaden access to U.S. food and fiber products to
emerging and developing markets and which broaden access of
agricultural products from other nations to U.S. markets; (2) global
environmental changes which impact directly on production processes in
the U.S.; (3) multinational investments in agricultural production in
the U.S. and other nations; (4) the growing U.S. international
agricultural labor force; and (5) the need to research and insure the
safety of food, both domestic and imported. U.S. universities must
teach agribusiness and producers of today and tomorrow to adjust to
rapidly changing product, financial, and labor markets. They must
access the best of new technologies and practices whatever their
origin. This will require continued updating of international
dimensions of teaching, research and extension programming.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY FISHERIES
AND WILDLIFE PROGRAMS
The National Association of University Fisheries And Wildlife
Programs (NAUFWP) provides this statement on the proposed fiscal year
2001 appropriations for the Cooperative State Research, Education and
Extension Service (CSREES), U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Fifty-four universities dealing with natural resources share
membership in the NAUFWP. They seek to advance the science and practice
of fisheries and wildlife ecology and management, and enhance public
understanding and multiple benefits from natural resources.
The NAUFWP recognizes that the research, education and extension
programs of CSREES and its Land Grant University partners initiate
positive changes in attitudes, and stimulate constructive actions to
implement new technologies and ecologically sound approaches and
practices by private landowners, resource managers, community decision-
makers, and other members of the public. Accumulated experiences show
that investments of funds and time yield significant benefits to
individuals, the States and the nation by building and sustaining a
more viable and productive natural resource base, and a competitive and
profitable agriculture.
The pressing challenge is to have the CSREES/Land Grant System,
with its credibility and delivery system, reach a larger portion of the
10 million or more private landowners and managers who control more
than two-thirds of the U.S. lands, or approximately 1.35 billion acres.
Regrettably the proposed fiscal year 2001 budget for CSREES is far from
adequate to help landowners and managers move toward achieving
sustainable uses of the resource base. Only about 4 percent of the
proposed fiscal year 2001 budget of $972,395,000 supports research and
extension activities pertaining to forests, rangelands, fish and
wildlife. This funding level is inadequate to respond to the public's
concerns and demands to enhance stewardship and management of natural
resources. Much greater investments and emphasis on proper uses of
natural resources are needed to achieve a more sustainable society,
thereby avoiding costly restoration.
To strengthen essential efforts of CSREES, the NAUFWP strongly
recommends that the following three priority adjustments and four
additional adjustments be made in the proposed fiscal year 2001 budget.
Priority 1.--That the Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA) be
funded at $15.0 million in fiscal year 2001. Demands for outreach
services exceed currently funded capabilities (about $3.1 million).
RREA funds, apportioned to the State Extension Services, effectively
leverage cooperating partnerships at four to one. This proposed
increase to $15.0 million would permit the Extension System to respond
to more informational needs of private landowners, and thereby
accomplish the goals and objectives outlined in its 1991-1995 Report To
The Congress. Needs for expanded outreach services are greater than
ever, as landownersbips become increasingly fragmented, as new and
established landowners request more information, and as the general
public demands natural resources be managed more carefully. The
proposed increase to $15.0 million would enable the Extension Service
to build its capabilities to assist more than 500,000 private
landowners yearly to improve decision making and management on an
additional estimated 35 million acres. Among the landowners and
managers requiring assistance are the more than 10 million private,
county and tribal landowners holding forestlands. Currently only a
small percentage have a forest management plan.
Priority 2.--That Smith-Lever 3 (b) & (c) funding be increased by 5
percent to a level of $290,000,000, with the increase allocated to
strengthening the Natural Resources And Environmental Management (NREM)
base program. NAUFWP appreciates that 3 (b) & (c) base programs provide
block grant type funds for Land Grant Universities to provide essential
educational outreach based on local assessments of needs. The proposed
increase in funds would enable NREM programs to develop a more
realistic level of expertise at State and local levels to address
resource and environmental issues directly affecting farmers, as well
as other landowners, in rural and urban communities nationwide.
Expressed needs for program expansion include such issues as forest
management, wetlands maintenance and restoration, responses for
declining and endangered species, and human/wildlife interactions.
Likewise, urban and community forestry and other natural resource
education efforts need strengthening, as called for in the 1990 FACT
Act, to achieve sustainability of these critical resources. The
proposed increase, targeted appropriately, would also help producers
better understand and implement conservation provisions of the Farm
Acts. It could also help strengthen the limited natural resources staff
in CSREES, as well as at the Land Grant Universities, including the
Black and Tribal institutions.
The Congress should direct the State Cooperative Extension Services
to partner with the State Fish And Wildlife Agencies, and other
appropriate State and Federal agencies, conservation organizations and
relevant private groups to meet demands for services. Extension 4-H
Youth natural resource programs and projects continue to expand, with
more than 1,350,000 young people presently enrolled, and needs are
increasing for additional technical assistance nationwide.
Priority 3.--That the water quality integrated activity be given at
least 10 percent more funds than proposed for fiscal year 2001
($16,204,000) to help correct the numerous and serious water quality
situations in the U.S. and assist in preventing additional situations
from developing. Only through the CSREES integrated research and
extension water quality program can connections between agricultural
practices and outbreaks of harmful algal blooms be understood and
managed more effectively. Approaches are required to correct and
prevent massive fish kills, human health problems and significant
economic losses to the seafood industry.
Priority 4.--That the Rangeland Research Grants (RRG) be restored
to $500,000 in the fiscal year 2001 budget. No funds were provided in
budgets for fiscal year 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. This is a major
weakness in CSREES's budget. More than one-half of the U.S. land area
is rangeland. Elimination of the only Federal competitive grants
program for rangelands has serious implications for wildlife,
watersheds, and other natural resources. Modest appropriations for RRG
in the past have supported some of the most important rangeland
research conducted in the past decade. Continued funding is needed to
focus on wildlife issues on rangelands. They will be some of the more
critical rangeland research problems in the next decade. This would
help increase the interdisciplinary capacity of research and
educational programs to help landowners accelerate adoption of habitat
conservation and management recommendations for rangelands and forests.
Only through such efforts can degraded rangelands and associated
riparian areas be restored.
Priority 5.--That an appropriate portion of the total proposed
increased appropriation for Pest Management be dedicated to educational
programs to prevent and control vertebrate pests in urban and rural
communities. Agricultural producers and other private landowners and
managers in many States have identified their needs to respond to their
most significant problems, frequently involving vertebrate pests.
Information and technical assistance are required. Targeting Pest
Management funds for vertebrate pest research and educational programs
would effectively advance the knowledge and capability of landowners
and managers to significantly reduce the losses in these problem
situations.
Priority 6.--That Hatch funds be increased 11 percent to
$200,000,000 and McIntire-Stennis funds be increased 14 percent to
$25,000,000. Flat funding, as proposed for fiscal year 2001 for both
Hatch and McIntire-Stennis, will not permit CSREES and the Land Grant
Universities to provide services to the more than 10 million private
landowners and managers. This assistance is needed to help them address
their natural resource issues, which frequently also are concerns
expressed by the general public. Greater cooperative research and
extension efforts are required to address the erosion and degradation
of the nation's natural resource base. The natural resource base and
all of its functions and services must be conserved if agriculture
productivity is to be sustained.
Priority 7.--That the proposed increase in funds for the National
Research Initiative competitive grants, especially those for natural
resources and the environment, be granted. As stated above, greater
efforts are required to address the erosion and degradation of the
nation's resource base.
In summary, the NAUFWP recommends that the following actions be
taken on CSREES's proposed fiscal year 2001 budget:
--Fund the RREA program at $15.0 million.
--Increase the Smith-Lever 3 (b) & (c) base funds to $290,000,000.
--Provide at least a 10 percent increase for the water quality
integrated activity.
--Restore $500,000 for Rangeland Research Grants.
--Designate an appropriate portion of the increased funds for Pest
Management to bolster research and education to address
vertebrate pest control and prevention in urban and rural
communities.
--Increase Hatch funds to $200,000,000 and McIntire-Stennis funds to
$25,000,000.
--Provide the proposed increase in funds for the National Research
Initiative competitive grants, especially those for natural
resources and the environment.
Please include this statement in the official record on the fiscal
year 2001 appropriations for CSREES, Department of Agriculture. Your
positive response will be appreciated.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS
INTRODUCTION
Good morning Chairman Cochran, Vice-Chairman Bumpers and
distinguished members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies. Thank you for the
opportunity to present testimony regarding the President's Budget
Request for fiscal year 2001 Indian programs and services. My name is
Susan Masten. I am President of the National Congress of American
Indians (NCAI) and Chair of the Yurok Tribe of Northern California.
The member tribal governments of NCAI are encouraged about this
year's budget process. For the first time in a generation, the
President has proposed a significant increase in the budget for
programs that assist Indian people and Indian tribes. If preserved
through the appropriations process, more than $1.2 billion more will be
provided to Indian programs. This commitment will better serve Indian
communities and take a big step toward honoring the Federal
Government's treaty and trust obligations to Indian nations. The news
is out in Indian Country: this year the President is committed to
meeting the acute needs in our communities. We are going to work very
hard to ensure that Congress shares that commitment.
The last time the Federal Government enacted an increase of a
similar scope to the President's fiscal year 2001 proposal, was in the
mid-1970's, as a part of President Nixon's Tribal Self-Determination
policy. Self-Determination has been and continues to be the most
successful Federal policy toward Indian Nations ever in the history of
the country. Under this policy, tribal governments have local control
over programs and decision making on their reservations and have been
able to fulfill needs and solve problems far more quickly and
efficiently than through ``top-down'' Federal programs. Through
experience with Self-Determination, a generation of financially astute
and fiscally responsible tribal government leadership has learned to
function as better managers and service providers in all manner of
tribal government functioning and tribal business development.
NCAI urges Congress to increase the investment in Indian programs
and tribal government infrastructure. We believe that the President's
fiscal year 2001 budget request has taken a positive step in that
direction. The following testimony provides NCAI's viewpoint on
sections of the budget that are most critical to tribal governments in
the Department of Agriculture.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Being the most rural of any minority group, American Indians
residing on reservations are for the most part, geographically
isolated, resource-limited, and the least likely of any farm group to
receive loans from the United States. Of the some 55 million acres of
Indian lands, 47 million acres are used for the production of crops,
livestock, or both. Those individual operators and farming tribes who
produce these resources are in need of capital, more efficient
administration of existing Federal programs, and technical assistance.
This need extends to every farming tribe, even those who may have an
abundance of other natural resources.
Programs Assisting Native Americans
While the President's proposed fiscal year 2001 budget request for
the Department of Agriculture is decreased overall by eight percent
from fiscal year 2000, the President's funding request for Native
American programs is increased by $90 million from fiscal year 2000,
for a total of $784 million. NCAI greatly supports this request for
increased funding, as it would: further the success of the numerous
American Indian tribes engaged in cultivation of agricultural and
community development; assure economic stability on Indian lands; and,
facilitate the development of agri-business to help overcome economic,
infrastructure, resource and geographic challenges, characteristic of
Indian reservations.
The commitment of the USDA to adequately fund line item programs
that apply specifically to tribes and to programs that benefit tribes
indirectly are both essential in order to enhance economic self-
sufficiency through rural development and rural based economies, and is
further strengthened and safeguarded by the specific education
initiatives of tribal colleges.
Native American Specific Programs
Extension Indian Reservations Program
Since 1990, the Extension Indian Reservation Program, authorized
under the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act, has been
providing many services to Indian Country on issues ranging from crop
and animal production practices to farm business management. It also
has provided extension agents, employees of the State Cooperative
Extension System, to work with tribal advisory committees in developing
educational programs in agriculture or agriculture-related youth
programs that respond to tribal priorities. Unfortunately, since
funding began in 1990, the Extension Indian Reservation program has
remained at $1.7 million, allowing support for about 26 projects in 15
States. For fiscal year 2001, the President has requested $5 million,
an increase of $3.3 million from the fiscal year 2000 level. NCAI
strongly supports this increase for fiscal year 2001 in order for the
program to hire additional extension agents on Indian reservations and
to assist tribal governments in promoting productive and efficient land
use on their reservations.
Rural Development Native American Programs
For fiscal year 2001, the President has requested $48.7 million, an
increase of $36.7 million over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level for
the Rural Development Native American Programs. Included in this
request is funding specifically earmarked for: Water and Waste Disposal
Direct Loans and Grants; Community Facility Loans and Grants; Rural
Business Enterprise Grants; Rural Business Opportunity Grants; and,
Intermediary Relending Program Loans.
NCAI supports the funding request to the Rural Development Native
American programs as it would provide more loans and grants to tribal
governments to construct and improve their water and wastewater
systems, construct community facilities such as health clinics and
child care centers, and diversify and expand economic opportunities
within their communities. These funds would also provide an appropriate
step in advancing tribal economic development and the achievement of
stable and self-sustaining reservation economies.
Specifically, NCAI supports the following:
--Water and Waste Disposal Direct Loans and Grants--the fiscal year
2001 budget request is $29.7 million, an increase of $17.7
million from fiscal year 2000. These loans and grants will
assist tribes in meeting the substantial need to improve the
quality of drinking water systems and waste water disposal
facilities on their reservations.
--Community Facility Loans and Grants--for fiscal year 2001, the
President has requested $8 million for this new initiative
which would provide grants to tribes for infrastructure
development.
--Rural Business Enterprise Grants--for fiscal year 2001, the
President has requested $6 million that would provide grants
for reservation small business.
--Rural Business Opportunity Grants--for fiscal year 2001, the
President has requested $1 million for Rural Business
Enterprise Grants, as seed monies for start-up businesses on
reservations.
--Intermediary Relending Program Loans--for fiscal year 2001, the
President has requested $4 million for this new program which
will provide loans for small business start up and expansion at
considerably lower interest rates than market rate.
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations
The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR)
greatly benefits many Native Americans who live on and off Indian
reservations. This program is administered by the Food & Nutrition
Service (FNS), an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in
cooperation with 98 Indian tribal organizations and six State agencies.
The fiscal year 2001 budget for the FDPIR is $76.5 million, an increase
of $1.5 million over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. Although
insignificant, this increase is crucial in order to provide commodity
foods to low-income households, including the elderly Native American,
living on reservations, and to Native American families residing in
designated areas near reservations. Many Native Americans actually
participate in the FDPIR, rather than the Food Stamp Program because of
rural isolation and the lack of easy access to food stores. NCAI
supports the appropriate funding increases to the FNS budget.
Proposed Expansion of Empowerment Zones
The proposed expansion of Empowerment Zones (EZs) will expand the
wage credits and tax incentives, as well as facilitate a new round of
urban EZs. These EZs will extend and improve economic growth in the
thirty-one existing urban and rural EZs that are administered by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and USDA, and support
the proposed third round of ten new EZs to be designated in 2001. The
total cost of these proposals will be $4.4 billion over ten years. NCAI
supports the much needed expansion of EZs as it will provide
economically depressed rural areas and communities, such as Indian
communities, with real opportunities to create jobs, develop and
enhance their communities, and diversify markets.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, we urge the Congress to fulfill its fiduciary duty to
American Indians and Alaska Natives and to uphold the trust
responsibility, as well as preserve the Government-to-Government
relationship with tribal governments, which includes the fulfillment of
health, education and welfare needs of all Indian tribes in the United
States. This responsibility should never be compromised or diminished
because of any Congressional agenda or party platform. Tribes
throughout the nation relinquished their lands as well as their rights
to liberty and property in exchange for this trust responsibility. The
President's fiscal year 2001 budget request acknowledges the fiduciary
duty owed to tribes. We ask that the Congress maintain the Federal
trust responsibility to Indian Country and continue to aid tribes on
our journey toward self-sufficiency. Thank you for allowing me to
present for the record the National Congress of American Indians'
comments regarding the President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for
the Department of Agriculture.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL CONSORTIUM FOR RURAL GEOSPATIAL
INNOVATIONS
As your subcommittee prepares the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture,
Rural Development and Related Agencies appropriations, we are
requesting that you provide $2 million to support the Geographic System
Information Program (GISP). We appreciate the support your subcommittee
has provided our Program in the past. This Program has received funding
from the Research and Education account of USDA's Cooperative State,
Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES).
The National Consortium for Rural Geospatial Innovations (RGIS) is
a group of eight university and non-profit sites distributed across the
U.S. With the support of the Geographic System Information Program,
RGIS sites assist state, tribal, regional and local governments and
non-and-for-profit organizations in implementing advanced geospatial
information technologies. The last decade has seen an explosion of
computer-based technologies for the creation and management and
distribution of information about natural resources, property records,
infrastructure, transportation, and other land use arenas. These
technologies include geographic information systems (GIS), remote
sensing image processing, global positioning systems (GPS) and other
related information technologies. RGIS uses a variety of approaches to
make these technologies understandable, affordable and useful.
The mission of RGIS is to eliminate the digital divide facing rural
America by promoting the transfer of geospatial technologies by:
--Providing geospatial tools, technologies, and training to empower
local governments, organizations, and citizens to understand
and participate in decisions that affect their economy, quality
of life, and environment;
--Educating and training a cadre of people to apply geospatial
technologies to rural issues;
--Supporting the development of appropriate local land information
systems, as well as linkage to and cooperation with regional,
state, and national land information systems.
--The goal of the program is to improve the quality of life,
environmental health, and economic competitiveness in rural
communities.
RGIS members have proved that geospatial technologies are efficient
and cost-effective tools to improve local decision-making and local
governmental processes. RGIS members have enabled local communities to
develop better information, which has allowed local communities to make
better decisions on a variety of issues including farmland
preservation, emergency services, watershed management, land records
modernization, and environmental protection. Continued funding of the
Program will allow the organization to continue these benefits and
leverage other resources to improve the quality of life in rural
America and insure these communities have access to cutting-edge
technologies.
This past year two new Chesapeake sites were added and supported by
the Program. These sites brought the following strengths to the
Consortium:
--Wilkes University and Kings College in Pennsylvania brings
expertise in how to implement geospatial technologies among
rural local governments and engineering mapping skills for
comprehensive watershed planning.
--Pennsylvania State University brings expertise in how to apply
geospatial technologies to assess agricultural quality for
rural land use planning and management and spatial analytic
methods for assessing the environment.
This past year the other existing six sites contributed the
following outcomes:
--University of Wisconsin-Madison continues its extensive set of
geospatial outreach training programs, including hands-on land
use planning and management program for county and town level
planners. Selection by the Federal Geographic Data Committee
(FGDC) Community Demonstration Program has provided an
opportunity to assist local citizen planners access new land
use planning and management tools.
--University of North Dakota continues to respond to the expanding
interest in geospatial technology by local governments. One of
the most rewarding developments has been the assistance
provided to the City of Grand Forks in the aftermath of the
1997 devastating flooding of the Red River.
--University of Arkansas continues to provide local, state and
national leadership. Examples include providing geospatial
expertise to the Arkansas Land Records Modernization Board, GIS
training camps for local high schools, and assisting the NRCS
develop the capacity to transfer soils and orthophotography
information over the Web.
--Central Washington University continues to support the
modernization of irrigation records used by water management
boards to insure equitable distribution of hydraulic resources
and continues to assist tribal and local rural communities
assess the role and use of geospatial technologies.
--South Georgia Regional Development Center continues to assist local
governments modernize land record systems such as parcel
records for various applications including economic development
and infrastructure management.
--Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) in its inaugural
Program year started a program to assist tribal communities
utilize GIS and GPS technologies for agricultural and local
land management applications. Also SIPI hosted a satellite
distance education geospatial program for 29 tribal colleges
across the U.S. Each RGIS Program Site participated by
providing a 15 minute technical segment to the 2 hr. satellite
program.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. If you have any
questions, please contact us at your convenience.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL COOPERATIVE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
USDA RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we appreciate the
opportunity to present testimony as you prepare to consider
appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for fiscal year 2001.
I would like to discuss the Rural Cooperative Development Grants
program. I urge you to appropriate $10 million for this valuable
program that is offering real solutions to the daunting challenges
being faced in rural America.
The National Cooperative Business Association (NCBA) is proud of
its role in assisting the creation of a network of rural cooperative
development centers across the country. We know that Congress is
equally as proud of its role in fostering a cooperative business
development support network throughout rural America. Congress and this
Administration recognize the vital role that cooperatives play in
providing jobs, increasing incomes and reducing expenses for millions
of rural Americans. NCBA is now also proud to be a member of
CooperationWorks, a network of cooperative development centers and
national partners dedicated to enhancing the capacity of centers and
promoting co-op solutions to rural America's economic challenges.
The Grants for Rural Cooperative Development program was originally
authorized by section 2347 of the 1990 farm bill as a program of Grants
for Technology Transfer and Cooperative Development. In fiscal year
1993, this committee began to provide funding for the program, and
report language over the years has indicated your strong support for
the concept of using this funding for the purpose of creating a network
of centers for rural cooperative business development. While the
centers offer technical assistance, information and other resources for
cooperative business formation, their network provides a vital support
system for the centers to continue operating.
NCBA's members, along with other supporters of cooperatives around
the nation, joined together as the National Rural Cooperative
Development Task Force to advocate for support for a national network
of centers and to develop the linkages among the centers and between
the centers and local partners to sustain the network's development.
NCBA is now working with these regional centers that provide vital
technical assistance and support for the development of cooperative
enterprises in rural America.
In 1996, Congress demonstrated its strong commitment to the centers
approach when it passed the FAIR Act, also known as the 1996 farm bill.
The program is now called Grants for Rural Cooperative Development in
section 747(c)(4) of Public Law 104-127. The program focuses on
supporting ``nonprofit institutions for the purpose of enabling the
institutions to establish and operate centers for rural cooperative
development.'' It is authorized to provide funding at $50 million per
year. The revised statutory language defines the goals of these centers
as ``facilitat[ing] the creation of jobs in rural areas through the
development of new rural cooperatives, value added processing, and
rural businesses.''
With the support of funding received from the program over the past
few years, the rural cooperative development centers have demonstrated
quantifiable results. CooperationWorks centers have established more
than 50 value-added cooperatives serving in excess of 5,000 members.
These centers have created or saved 16,500 jobs in the communities they
serve. They have assisted more than 400 local communities and
organizations. The centers have raised the quality of technical
assistance being provided on cooperative development, they have
developed significant information-sharing capability among their
network and created the first report of best practices in the field of
cooperative development.
This coming year, centers will be involved in replicating successes
they have achieved and breaking new ground in areas where cooperative
development is needed. As the farm crisis continues into another year,
centers are working with farmers to get more of the consumer dollar and
diversify their sources of revenue. Co-op development centers provide
the necessary technical assistance to help farmers form value-added
cooperatives. These cooperatives allow, as USDA Secretary Glickman has
said, the tomato farmers to own the ketchup plant. Centers are helping
farmers diversify their sources of revenue by assisting in the
formation of forestry cooperatives. These co-ops are enabling farmers
to turn unproductive woodlots on their property into another crop that
provide income year after year.
Other cooperative development projects include the formation of new
consumer-owned energy purchasing cooperatives, child care cooperatives,
and cooperative housing projects. New energy cooperatives are giving
consumers the power to negotiate better prices on a broad range of
energy products and services. Child care cooperatives provide former
welfare recipients and other low-income people the opportunity to
reduce the cost of child care and give them control over how their
child care facilities are operated. Cooperative housing gives seniors
and others in rural areas the chance to save money on their housing and
live in safe communities.
The President's budget includes $6 million for this program. This
is a significant increase in funding from prior years, demonstrating
the Administration's acknowledgement of the value of this program.
USDA's National Commission on Small Farms recently recommended that
this program be funded at $20 million annually. The Commission's report
calls the program ``one of the few that supports rural cooperative
development at the grassroots level.'' The program is authorized to be
funded at $50 million annually.
We urge this committee to do what over 130 organizations from
around the country are urging Congress and the Administration to do:
increase funding for this valuable program. Mr. Chairman, I ask that
the letter signed by those organizations be included in the record of
this hearing along with my testimony.
NCBA is a national membership association representing
cooperatives--over 120 million Americans and 47,000 businesses ranging
in size from small buying clubs to businesses included in the Fortune
500. NCBA's membership includes cooperatives in the fields of housing,
health care, finance, insurance, child care, agricultural marketing and
supply, rural utilities and consumer goods and services. NCBA brings
its members together to create business opportunities and to develop,
advance and to protect cooperative enterprise.
INCREASE FUNDING FOR RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
We, the undersigned organizations, urge Congress and the
Administration to increase funding for the Rural Cooperative
Development Grants program at USDA. The program has helped build
capacity in a few rural cooperative development centers at its annual
funding level. This program could be a driving force in federal efforts
to spark an economic revitalization in rural America, but only if
further funds are provided to meet the need. The program is authorized
to be funded at $50 million annually.
USDA's National Commission on Small Farms recommended that this
program ``be increased by $10 million annually up to $20 million.'' The
Commission's report calls the program ``one of the few that supports
rural cooperative development at the grassroots level.''
While dramatically changing economic forces are challenging rural
Americans, this type of program is giving them the tools to shape their
own future. We ask for your commitment to growing this program to serve
all of rural America.
Ag Processing, Inc., Omaha, NE; AgriBank, St. Paul, MN; Agri-
Business Institute at Mississippi State University, Mississippi State,
MS; Agri-Mark, Inc., Lawrence, MA; Agricultural Council of California;
Alaska Village Initiatives, Anchorage, AK; Alcorn State University
Cooperative Extension Program, Alcorn, MS; Amalgamated Bank of New
York, New York, NY; Antigo Co-op Credit Union, Antigo, WI; Appalbanc,
Berea, KY; Arkansas Wood Manufacturers Association; Basin Electric
Power Cooperative, Bismarck, ND; Blooming Prairie Cooperative
Warehouse, Iowa City, IA; California Association of Cooperatives; Cass
County Electric Cooperative, Fargo, ND; Cattlemen's Texas Longhorn
Registry, Animas, NM; Center for Rural Affairs, Walthill, NE; Center
for Rural Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA; Central Appalachian Peoples
Federal Credit Union, Berea, KY; Chicot County Governor's
Collaborative, Lake Village, AR; CoBank, Denver, CO; Colorado
Cooperative Council; Commodity Growers Cooperative, Lexington, KY;
Consumer Federation of America; Co/op Optical, Detroit, MI; Cooperative
Council of North Carolina; Cooperative Development Foundation,
Washington, DC; Cooperative Development Institute, Greenfield, MA;
Cooperative Development Services, Madison, WI; The Cooperative
Foundation, St. Paul, MN; Cooperative Resources International, Shawano,
WI; Co-opportunity, Inc., Hartford, CT; Coordinated Housing Services,
New York, NY; Coordinating Council of Cooperatives, New York, NY;
Countrymark Cooperative, Indianapolis, IN; Credit Union National
Association; Darby Enterprises, Inc., Alexandria, VA; Denver Buffalo
Company, Denver, CO; East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Winchester, KY;
Economic Development Center of Henderson State University, Arkadelphia,
AR; Equity Cooperative, Amery, WI; Farm Credit Council; Farmland
Industries, Inc., Kansas City, MO; Federation of Ohio River
Cooperatives, Columbus, OH; Federation of New York Housing
Cooperatives, New York, NY; Federation of Southern Cooperatives,
Atlanta, GA; First Rochdale Group, New York, NY; FoodService Purchasing
Cooperative, Louisville, KY; Freeh Enterprises, St. Paul, MN; Frenkel &
Company, Inc., New York, NY; Grassroots Citizens Awareness Network, New
Haven, CT; Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, Seattle, WA;
Hamilton Farm Bureau Cooperative, Hamilton, MI; Homestead Housing
Center, Inver Grove Heights, MN; Humane Society of the United States;
Intertribal Agriculture Council, Billings, MT; Iowa Institute for
Cooperatives; Kansas Cooperative Council; Kansas Farmers Service
Association, Hutchinson, KS; Keystone Cooperative Development Center
(Pennsylvania); Land O'Lakes, Arden Hills, MN; Michigan Alliance of
Cooperatives; Minnesota Association of Cooperatives; Mississippi
Association of Cooperatives; Mountain View Harvest Cooperative,
Longmont, CO; MultiPlan, Inc., New York, NY; Mutual Service Insurance,
St. Paul, MN; National Association of Development Organizations;
National Association of Federal Credit Unions; National Association of
Housing Cooperatives; National Catholic Rural Life Conference, Des
Moines, IA; National Center for Appropriate Technology, Butte, MT and
Fayetteville, AR; National Congress for Community Economic Development;
National Cooperative Bank; National Cooperative Business Association;
National Family Farm Coalition; National Farmers Union; National
Federation of Community Development Credit Unions; National Grange;
National Grape Co-operative Association (Welch's), Westfield, NY;
National Network of Centers for Cooperative Development; National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association; National Rural Telecommunications
Cooperative, Herndon, VA; National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance
Corporation; National Telephone Cooperative Association; Nationwide
Insurance Enterprise, Columbus, OH; Nebraska Cooperative Council; New
Hampshire Electric Cooperative, Plymouth, NH; New Pioneer Cooperative
Society, Iowa City, IA; North American Bison Cooperative, New Rockford,
ND; North American Students of Cooperation, Ann Arbor, MI; Northcountry
Cooperative Development Fund, Minneapolis, MN; North Dakota Association
of Rural Electric Cooperatives; North Dakota Farm Bureau, Bismarck, ND;
North Dakota State Department of Agriculture; Northeast Cooperative
Council, Ithaca, NY; Northeast Cooperatives, Brattleboro, VT; North
Farm Cooperative, Madison, WI; Northwest Cooperative Federation,
Seattle, WA; Ocean Beach People's Food Co-op, San Diego, CA; Ohio
Council of Cooperatives; Oneota Community Co-op, Decorah, IA; Ozark
Cooperative Warehouse, Fayetteville, AR; Park Forest Cooperative Area
J, Park Forest, IL; Peer Marketing Associates, Inc., Ramsey, NJ;
Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture; Pennsylvania
Council of Cooperatives; Pennsylvania Credit Union League; Pennsylvania
Farmers Union; People's Food Co-op, La Crosse, WI; Public Voice for
Food and Health Policy; Puget Consumers Cooperative, Seattle, WA; Puget
Sound Development Foundation, Seattle, WA; QuipNet, Inc., Blue Springs,
MO; Ranchers Choice Cooperative, Antonitos, CO; Rocky Mountain Farmers
Union, Aurora, CO; Rural Coalition; Rural Wisconsin Health Cooperative,
Sauk City, WI; St. Mary's Bank, Manchester, NH; St. Paul Bank for
Cooperatives, St. Paul, MN; Skagit Valley Food Co-op, Mt. Vernon, WA;
Sustainable Agriculture Coalition; Texas Agricultural Cooperative
Council; Tucson Cooperative Warehouse, Tucson, AZ; United Housing
Foundation, New York, NY; United Methodist Church, General Board of
Church & Society; University of California Center for Cooperatives,
Davis, CA; University of Texas Inter-Cooperative Council, Austin, TX;
University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, Madison, WI;
Washington State Council of Farmer Cooperatives; Washington State Rural
Electric Cooperative Association; Washington Electric Cooperative, East
Montpelier, VT; Wheatsville Food Cooperative, Austin, TX; Whole Foods
Cooperative Association, Erie, PA; Wildcat Creek Farms, Inc., Payne,
OH; Williamson Street Grocery Cooperative, Madison, WI; Winrock
International, Morrilton, AR; Wisconsin Federation of Cooperatives;
Wisconsin Federation of Farm Credit Services, Appleton, WI and Wit &
Company, Ltd., Decatur, IL
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION
The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) appreciates the
opportunity to provide the Subcommittee with our recommendations for
fiscal year 2001 appropriations for key programs administered by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture. The NCGA represents 30,000 corn growers
in 48 states and the association's mission is to create and increase
opportunities for corn growers in a changing world and to enhance corn
utilization and profitability.
The NCGA, strongly, urges the Subcommittee to:
--Increase the ARS plant, animal, and microbial genomics programs by,
at least, the $4.7 million requested in the Administration's
budget;
--Increase funding for the National Plant Germplasm System by $20
million; and
--Provide funding for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food
Systems.
While many federal agricultural programs are important to the
nation's corn growers, NCGA believes that the future of the corn
industry is written in corn's genetic code and that plant genomics will
give us the fundamental information necessary to revolutionize American
agriculture. Plant genomics research advances our understanding of the
structure, organization and function of plant genomes.
Since 1996, funding for plant genomics has been the number one
appropriations issue for the NCGA. The Plant Genome Initiative (PGI), a
multi-agency program focused on structural and functional genomics,
will help scientists, geneticists, and plant breeders identify and
utilize genes (from corn and other plants) that control important
traits, such as nutritional value, stress tolerance, and resistance to
pests. In a recently published report, the Interagency Working Group on
Plant Genomes, estimated that $500 million, over three years (fiscal
year 2000-2002) was needed for the National PGI. While the NSF will
provide a significant level of funding for the PGI, USDA must increase
its plant genomics funding, substantially, if we are to meet the
minimum level of need. Further, USDA must begin a concerted effort in
animal and microbial genomics.
For the fiscal year 2001 agricultural appropriations bill, the NCGA
supports the Administration's budget request for an increase of $4.7
million for plant, animal, microbial, and insect genomics at the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS). We believe, however, that this
amount should be increased, substantially, to ensure that the ARS has
sufficient resources to participate fully in the advances in genomics
research. The NCGA, also, urges the Subcommittee to provide funding for
the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems so that a major
portion of the funds will be used for a comprehensive plant, animal,
and microbial genomics competitive grants program that is coordinated
with the ARS, NSF, and DOE.
To take full advantage of the plant genomics revolution, diverse
plant germplasm must be available for crop breeders to develop the
varieties necessary to meet the changing circumstances and needs of the
future. The USDA National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS)--
--Acquires germplasm;
--Develops and documents information on the germplasm;
--Preserves and distributes germplasm upon request; and
--Maintains quarantine facilities for testing imported germplasm.
Funding for the NPGS has declined by more than 14 percent, in
constant dollars, since 1992, while demands on the system have
increased. The NSF-funded plant genome research program will increase,
tremendously, the amount of genetic stocks for the NPGS to manage. For
example, one maize grant will generate, at least, 50,000 new maize
genetic stocks, doubling the size of the NPGS maize stock center.
Comparable situations will exist for several other economically
important crops as well. Without a significant increase in funding, the
NPGS will not be able to manage current stocks, much less the increased
stocks that are being generated through genomics research.
The NPGS must obtain a significant increase in funding over the
next few years to ensure that diverse genetic resources are available
to provide growers with hybrids and varieties that will address the
challenges of the future. It is critical that these resources be
maintained at the public level for continued accessibility to all
scientists and breeders. The NCGA believes that the NPGS is a
fundamental, strategic resource. The NCGA urges the Subcommittee to
provide a $20 million increase for the National Plant Germplasm System.
Advances in basic plant science that result from a vigorous plant
genomics program and a strong, viable National Plant Germplasm System
will allow us to create new hybrids and varieties that will--
--Improve human and animal health;
--Reduce medical costs due to more nutritious, healthier, food for
individuals;
--Reduce worldwide malnutrition through higher yielding and more
nutritious crops;
--Reduce environmental problems for crop and livestock growers;
--Expand plant-based renewable resources for chemicals and energy;
and
--Allow growers to get more income from the market and reduce grower
reliance on Federal farm programs.
The National Plant Genome Initiative and the National Plant
Germplasm System are critical to the long-term viability of U.S.
agriculture. The NCGA, strongly, urges Congress to provide increased
funding for plant, animal, and microbial genomics research and to
provide an increase of $20 million for the National Plant Germplasm
System to ensure that our growers have the tools to meet the challenges
and demands of the 21st century.
Thank you for your consideration of our views.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES
The National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC) appreciates this
opportunity to share its views regarding the fiscal year 2001
agriculture appropriations bill, and respectfully requests this
statement be made a part of the official hearing record.
OVERVIEW OF NCFC
NCFC is a national trade association representing nearly 100
regional marketing, supply and credit cooperatives, and state councils.
Included among these regional cooperatives are over 3,500 local
cooperatives whose farmer-owners represent a majority of America's
nearly 2 million individual farmers. These farmer-owned cooperative
businesses are engaged in virtually every facet of agriculture. This
includes handling, processing, marketing and exporting of U.S.-produced
agricultural commodities and related products; the manufacture,
distribution and sale of farm supplies; and the providing of credit and
related financial services, including export financing for and on
behalf of their farmer owners.
IMPORTANCE OF FARMER COOPERATIVES
For farmers, such cooperative self-help efforts provide the
opportunity to reduce risks, capitalize on market opportunities and
earn a greater return on their productivity and investment. Earnings
derived from such business are returned to the cooperative's farmer
owners on a patronage basis, which also helps contribute to local and
regional economic activity as well as the national economy. Another
important contribution is reflected in the fact these farmer-owned
cooperative businesses also employ nearly 300,000 people (full and
part-time) with a combined payroll of approximately $6.8 billion. Many
of these jobs are in rural areas where employment opportunities are
sometimes limited.
NEED FOR PUBLIC POLICIES THAT PROMOTE COOPERATIVE SELF-HELP EFFORTS
Current economic conditions, together with the rapid changes taking
place throughout the global economy, underscore the need for policies
and programs to strengthen the ability of farmers to join together in
cooperative self-help efforts to: (1) better manage the risks and
uncertainty inherent in production agriculture; (2) capitalize on new
market opportunities, including moving more into value-added production
and processing; and (3) compete more successfully in a global
marketplace still characterized by subsidized foreign competition. Such
initiatives would help maintain and create needed jobs in communities
throughout rural America.
SUPPORT FOR USDA'S RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE
We urge that funding and staffing be strengthened for USDA's
Cooperative Services unit within the Rural Business-Cooperative Service
(RBS) to ensure that it is fully able to carry out its historical
mission as mandated by Congress in support of farmer cooperatives. It
should be noted that funding for such programs is currently included in
amounts made available for salaries and expenses in the RBS mission
area. Providing specific funding for programs administered by
Cooperative Services for research, education and technical assistance
in support of farmer cooperatives would enhance program continuity and
promote longer term planning.
Specifically, we recommend that not less than $5 million be made
available to RBS's Cooperative Services unit for carrying out such
programs relating to farmer cooperatives. Funding for cooperative
research agreements should also be strengthened with the objective of
further assisting farmers in joining together in cooperative self-help
efforts. Such action would encourage and promote research, education
and technical assistance that would benefit farmers and their
cooperatives.
COMMODITY PURCHASE PROGRAMS AND FARMER COOPERATIVES
We also want to express our strong support for maintaining both the
statutory provisions and report language included in the fiscal year
2000 agriculture appropriations bill to ensure that farmer cooperatives
are fully eligible to participate in USDA's commodity purchase
programs. Such programs serve two important purposes. One, they help
meet the food and nutrition needs of consumers. Two, they provide an
important market outlet for farmers, especially during periods of
surplus production, thereby helping strengthen farm income and
promoting orderly marketing.
However, under previous guidelines established by USDA, this
important market was eliminated for many farmers choosing to
cooperatively market their products. The provision in the fiscal year
2000 agriculture appropriations bill addresses this by clearly
providing that farmer cooperatives are fully eligible to participate in
such programs for and on behalf of their farmer owners.
In doing so, it preserves an important market outlet for many
farmers, promotes orderly marketing, encourages cooperative self-help
efforts, and helps maintain and strengthen farm income--since proceeds
from the sale of commodities and related products are returned to the
cooperatives' farmer owners as patronage income. It also serves to
increase the potential quantity and quality of commodities and related
products available for purchase and use under such programs, and
provides for more competitive bidding among participants. Finally, it
helps contribute to stronger rural communities where farmer
cooperatives and their farmer owners are located.
CROP INSURANCE/RISK MANAGEMENT
We continue to urge support for policies and programs that provide
an expanded role and opportunity for farmers through their cooperatives
and associations to join together to purchase or obtain crop insurance
on a more affordable and competitive basis. We believe such action
would also help encourage program participation, improve the current
delivery system, strengthen private sector involvement, and further
encourage cooperative self-help efforts. In support of such action, we
believe USDA should be encouraged to provide for full and effective
participation by farmer cooperatives for the benefit of their farmer
members.
EXPORT PROGRAMS
We strongly urge support for USDA's export programs, including the
Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market Development (FMD)
Cooperator Program, and we endorse the recommendations of the Coalition
to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports of which NCFC is a member. Such
programs have been tremendously successful and extremely cost-effective
in helping maintain and expand U.S. agricultural exports, countering
subsidized foreign competition, protecting American jobs and
strengthening farm income.
Programs such as MAP and FMD have also helped encourage and
strengthen the ability of farmers to join together in cooperative
efforts to promote their products in overseas markets and improve their
income. Administered on a cost-share basis, they remain one of 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.
According to a USDA study, the European Union (EU) and other
foreign competitors are now outspending the U.S. by a factor of 20 to 1
with regard to the use of export subsidies and other expenditures for
export promotion. The same study 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 more to promote agricultural
exports to the United States, than the U.S. is currently spending ($90
million) to promote American agricultural exports worldwide! Equally
alarming, USDA now reports that based on 1999 figures, the U.S. for the
first time has become a net importer of agriculture products with
regard to the European Union.
Clearly, aggressive action is needed. We urge support for increased
funding for MAP and other export programs, and ensuring that such
programs are fully and aggressively utilized. Since MAP was originally
authorized, funding has been gradually reduced from a high of $200
million to its current level of $90 million--a reduction of more than
50 percent. Again, given what our foreign trade competitors are doing,
we believe it's time to restore funding for this vitally important
program up to its original level.
We also urge continued funding for other related USDA export
programs, including the Export Enhancement Program (EEP), Dairy Export
Incentive Program (DEIP), GSM Export Credit Guarantee Program, and
Public Law 480. All of these programs continue to be essential to help
encourage U.S. agriculture exports, counter subsidized foreign
competition, protect American jobs, and strengthen farm income.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
Another important area of emphasis when it comes to enhancing the
global competitiveness of farmer cooperatives and American agriculture
is research. It is equally important to help ensure that farmer
cooperatives and American agriculture can continue to help provide
consumers at home and abroad with a dependable supply of safe, high
quality food and fiber at reasonable prices, while meeting important
environmental and food safety objectives.
This includes recognition of the need to help farmers, their
cooperatives, and others engaged in agriculture meet the goals and
requirements of such statutes as the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
and the Clean Air Act (CAA), among others. To help meet these
challenges, we believe every effort should be made to maintain and
strengthen the highly successful public-private partnership involving
USDA, the land grant universities and colleges, and the private sector.
This includes providing needed funding at the federal level through
USDA and ensuring that such funding helps achieve the important
objectives outlined above.
CONSERVATION/EQIP
We strongly support continued funding for the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP), as well as restoring funding for the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), as recommended in the
Administration's budget. Such programs are necessary to help achieve
and maximize water quality and other environmental benefits.
The CRP and EQIP programs in particular are critical to empowering
farmers to continue voluntary efforts to respond to societal
expectations and demands with regard to water quality and help protect
our natural resource base.
Adequate funding for the Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) technical assistance capability is critical to farmers and
cooperatives working to address water quality and other conservation
and environmental challenges.
CROP PROTECTION/PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
The Administration's budget request includes funds for Integrated
Pest Management (IPM) programs and IR-4 program to collect and analyze
data on pesticide residues through the Pesticide Data Program (PDP). We
endorse the views of: (1) the Food Quality Protection Act-
Implementation Working Group (FQPA-IWG) of which NCFC is a steering
committee member, and (2) the Minor Crop Farmer Alliance (MCFA) of
which NCFC is an executive committee member. USDA's role in this
process is critical if FQPA is to be implemented as intended by
Congress.
We believe USDA is uniquely qualified to (a) gather and provide
data to the EPA regarding pesticide use and dietary consumption
patterns, and (b) to provide information about crop protection needs
and efficacious and affordable alternatives. USDA has statutory
obligations to carry out regarding minor use pesticides pursuant to
FQPA, including establishment of a minor use office to facilitate
grower efforts to provide information needed to maintain or develop
label uses.
Clearly, USDA has an essential role to play in working with EPA
regarding implementation of FQPA to ensure that food and agricultural
policy considerations are taken into account. For these reasons, we
strongly urge that adequate funding be provided to ensure that it has
the necessary resources to carry out such responsibilities.
MEAT INSPECTION/USER FEES
We continue to be opposed to user fees relating to Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) for meat inspection. Such inspection programs
provide important public benefits relating to food safety and quality
and should continue to be publicly funded. The imposition of new user
fees, to the extent that such fees could not be passed on to consumers,
would impose an additional cost burden on farmer cooperatives and their
farmer members, and reduce farm income. Again, in recognition of the
public benefits of such programs and the need to maintain confidence in
the safety and quality of such products, the federal government should
maintain its historic role.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of NCFC and its members, we want to again
thank you for the opportunity to share our views with regard to the
fiscal year 2001 agriculture appropriations bill. We also wish to take
this opportunity to express our appreciation to you and the members of
the Subcommittee for your interest and support of farmer cooperatives
and American agriculture.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, I am Barb Packett, President
of the National Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) Association.
Our Association of state and local CSFP operators work diligently with
the Department of Agriculture Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Service to
insure a quality supplemental nutrition assistance commodity food
package program for senior men and women, and mothers, infants, and
children. The program, which was authorized in 1969, serves 436,000
individuals every month in 24 states and the District of Columbia.
This 30 year old CSFP program stands as testimony to the power of
partnerships between community-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.
--The CSFP provides a monthly selection of foods 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 amounts to one-
third the cost it would be to provide the same supplemental
nutrients at retail voucher cost. The average food package cost
for fiscal year 2000 is $15.71 and retail would be at least
$55.
--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.
--For these historical reasons I would like to submit the National
CSFP Association legislative issues and a report of our 1999
survey of monthly volunteer labor hours to support our
requests.
Chairman Cochran, the committee has consistently been helpful with
funding support for our very prudent way of providing nutritional
supplements to the seniors and mothers and children. Please help us
continue.
COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM (CSFP) LEGISLATIVE ISSUES FISCAL
YEAR 2001
Position.--The CSFP Association recommends an appropriation of $110
million for FFY 2001. This would increase the budget figure of $93.3
million. The increase is necessary for:
--Additional caseload requests
--Adjustment for state/local funding
Justification.--CSFP is a very effective food delivery system.
According to USDA-FNS the average cost of a food package is $16. The
average retail value of those foods distributed by grassroots community
organizations is $50-$60. Our 1999 survey of monthly volunteer labor
hours shows we have at least $641,312 a month donated to stretch
support funding for the program.
--Expansion requests and restoration requests for caseload total
37,488 more than fiscal year 2000. This will support existing
programs and the five new states of Mississippi, Montana, Ohio,
Texas and Vermont.
--The President's budget includes $7 million in food inventory for
program support. The mix of food inventory and funds would
effectively reduce state/local support funds by $1.4 million
(-7 percent) due to computation on funds not total program
assets.
Position.--With the aging of America, CSFP should be an integral
part of USDA Senior Nutrition Policy. This is the most cost-effective
way to provide the nutrient rich foods low-income seniors are lacking.
Justification.--The advantages of CSFP include:
--The food package for seniors is nutritionally balanced.
--Supplemental nutrition is proven to reduce public health care
costs.
--Nutrition education and health referrals are provided.
--Food is distributed through community and faith based
organizations, familiar to many seniors.
--Seniors resist participation in programs such as food stamps, but
readily access commodity programs.
--CSFP requires a means test that assures participants are truly
needy.
--Actual food is provided to those who need it most.
--CSFP supports United States farmers.
--Program operators utilize volunteers and other in-kind donations to
reach homebound seniors.
--The retail value of each food package is approximately $55.00 while
the USDA blended cost per food package is $15.71.
NATIONAL COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM (CSFP) SURVEY--1999 MONTHLY VOLUNTEER LABOR DATA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed Mobile Volunteer Volunteer Dollar Square
State Sites Participants Sites Participants Sites Participants Hours Value Miles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire................................ 3 2,084 83 4,586 37 790 4,078 $58,315 9,304
New York..................................... 8 41,066 99 5,594 ......... ............ 142 2,031 3,300
Wash. D.C.................................... 5 7,089 5 723 17 2,396 739 10,568 63
Kentucky..................................... 1 4,800 ........ ............ 16 850 600 8,580 750
North Carolina............................... 1 1,087 8 239 ......... ............ 75 1,073 500
Tennessee \1\................................ 4 14,324 3 4,400 ......... ............ ......... ......... 1,850
Illinois..................................... 13 12,417 ........ ............ 75 3,801 940 13,442 956
Michigan \1\................................. 61 45,943 267 49,611 417 12,525 10,160 145,288 58,527
Red Lake, MN \1\............................. 1 325 ........ ............ ......... ............ ......... ......... ( \2\ )
Minnesota \1\................................ 2 2,822 83 5,994 ......... ............ 504 7,207 84,068
Louisiana.................................... 10 10,754 35 25,797 251 37,197 5,352 76,534 27,928
New Mexico................................... 3 10,402 38 5,640 20 845 1,014 14,500 42,181
Colorado..................................... 10 18,022 431 4,872 15 699 9,107 130,230 28,040
Iowa......................................... 1 2,669 44 1,039 79 667 390 5,577 3,590
Kansas....................................... 12 3,474 75 2,225 56 884 1,570 22,451 11,975
Nebraska..................................... 24 8,918 56 2,835 89 2,461 2,079 29,730 74,866
South Dakota................................. 2 470 5 140 ......... ............ ......... ......... ( \2\ )
Arizona...................................... 98 17,705 6 800 1 95 3,576 51,137 80,000
California................................... ....... ............ 36 26,341 81 4,980 4,400 62,920 1,007
Oregon....................................... 1 852 3 96 ......... ............ 121 1,730 435
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS................................. 260 205,223 1,277 140,932 1,154 68,190 44,847 641,312 429,340
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Figures are approximate; taken from Spring/Summer 1999, in a survey conducted by the National CSFP Association. (figures are from 1998).
\2\ Reservation.
FIXED SITE: Foods are warehoused and participants travel to the site and take food packages back to their homes. Distributed to participants by paid
staff.
MOBILE SITE: Distribution where foods are transported to a facility (not warehoused) and distributed to participants by paid staff.
VOLUNTEER SITE: Location where distribution of prepacked foods is performed by volunteer groups or individuals.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL FISHERIES INSTITUTE
As the subcommittee begins it consideration of the Administration's
budget submission and fiscal year 2001 appropriations, the National
Fisheries Institute (NFI) would like to take this opportunity to share
with you our priorities and concerns regarding the budget proposal for
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The NFI is the nation's leading
trade association for the fish and seafood industry. Our members
represent all aspects of the fish and seafood industry: harvesters,
aquaculturalists, processors, importers, exporters, food service
operators, and restaurants. The NFI appreciates your consideration of
these requests.
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
Consolidating Seafood Inspections
The fiscal year 2001 FDA budget proposes for the second year in a
row that $13 million in user fees be collected by transferring the
Department of Commerce (USDC) Voluntary Seafood Inspection Program to
the FDA as a Performance-Based Organization. The NFI opposes this
transfer. We feel it is inappropriate to combine the voluntary
marketing and quality assurance program of the USDC with the mandatory
seafood HACCP program at the FDA. As suggested by the National Academy
of Sciences, such a combination could create conflicts of interest that
would under-mine the objectivity and credibility of FDA's seafood HACCP
program. The NFI is particularly concerned about the proposal to
``cross-deputize'' voluntary inspectors as HACCP inspectors. If the FDA
needs FTEs to adequately staff its mandatory inspection program, it
should seek the funding for them. The NFI pioneered seafood HACCP and
cannot support any proposal that would weaken this program. We urge you
to oppose this proposal.
Improving FDA's Infrastructure
The NFI strongly supports the proposal for $43 million over two
years (including $20 million in fiscal year 2001) to replace the
dilapidated Los Angeles regional laboratory facility. Expected benefits
from construction of the new Los Angeles laboratory include providing a
much safer location and a vastly improved working environment for FDA
and partnering state laboratory personnel, having a concentration of
scientific talent available which will permit better management of the
analytical workload and will provide significant improvement in
operational efficiency. Also, better analytical coverage will be
provided during emergencies. Additional benefits include a more
efficient use of costly analytical equipment and better-equipped
laboratories in a state-of-the-art facility, resulting in improved
turn-around time and sampling efficiency. The existing facility which
processes 23 percent of the FDA's food analyses each year, has exceeded
its limitations and is currently unable to provide these services in a
timely and efficient manner. The NFI urges the subcommittee to full
fund this budget proposal.
At the same time, we are concerned about the ongoing degradation of
services from the FDA's seafood laboratory in Seattle, WA. The FDA must
have an adequate research capability to provide scientific data and
information necessary to implement its inspection program based on
sound science. This lab provides extremely valuable analytical services
to the fish and seafood industry. Staff and funding cuts have
undermined the capability of this facility to deliver scientific
information on emerging food safety questions. We urge the subcommittee
to direct the FDA to maintain the services of the Seattle seafood
laboratory.
User Fees
The NFI strongly opposes the proposal to impose user fees on food
additive petitions ($8.4 million) and food export certifications ($5.3
million). With regard to food additive petitions, these petitions are
required in order to protect public health from potentially dangerous
or otherwise inappropriate food additives. The primary beneficiary is
the public. In addition, a perceived conflict of interest could arise
if consumers thought the industry was paying the FDA to approve food
additives. With regard to export certificates, our trading partners,
most notably the European Union, rely on FDA's export certifications as
an objective and credible verification of the safety of exported food
products. Imposing a User Fee on this system could undermine their
confidence in the independence of the certifications, hurting our fish
and seafood exports that already trail seafood imports by $5 billion
per year. We urge you to oppose these proposals.
Equivalency Agreements
More than 60 percent of the more than 4 billion pounds of seafood
consumed by Americans is imported. Under the current FDA HACCP program,
importers must demonstrate HACCP compliance by their foreign suppliers.
NFI member companies strive to acquire verification documentation and
other assurances that their imports have been processed under HACCP
systems. The FDA further assures compliance with port-of-entry
sampling. However, this sampling and testing system is reactive and
subject to resource limitations. One way to substantially improve our
confidence in the food safety inspection systems of our foreign
suppliers is throughout the establishment of agreements between the FDA
and our major trading partners. The fiscal year 2000 FDA budget
proposal indicated that the FDA was working to improve the safety and
sanitation of imported seafood by establishing equivalency agreements
to ensure that exporting countries have seafood inspection systems
equivalent to those of the U.S. The FDA's equivalency program is
consistent with provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT) where participating countries agreed to accept products
made under equivalent systems. In fiscal year 2000, the FDA was to have
reviewed submissions from numerous countries and the European Union. In
addition, the FDA was to visit 6 countries, including Australia,
Canada, Chile, Iceland, New Zealand, and the E.U.
Despite the rhetorical commitment to equivalency agreements, not a
single agreement has been signed. We urge the subcommittee to direct
the FDA the prioritize equivalency agreements.
Compliance Visits
The FDA conducts HACCP compliance visits to key nations that supply
fish and seafood to the United States. The visits allow the FDA to
evaluate the capabilities of government inspection programs and
individual processing plants to meet U.S. HACCP requirements. These
visits augment the verification efforts of the U.S. seafood importing
community and help ensure that overall safety of imported fish and
seafood products. In addition, the information gathered during these
visits can be used to improve port of entry inspection by targeting
risk entries. Despite recent increases in the number of countries
inspected by the FDA, we feel additional visits are warranted. We urge
the subcommittee to direct the FDA to continue to increase the number
of compliance visits it is conducting on an annual basis.
USDA--AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
The NFI is deeply concerned about a proposed $2.5 million cut to
the aquaculture/fish farming research being conducted at ARS research
stations in Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Mississippi, and West
Virginia. The proposed cuts are in the areas of fish health management
(such as vaccine development), registration of drugs and chemicals to
combat serious diseases, least-cost fish feed formulations, genetic
fish stock improvements, catfish, and cool and cold water fish
production technology.
The ARS has done much to focus research programs over the last
decade and provide needed research results to the aquaculture
community. With world population continuing to grow, and wild harvest
of fish and seafood reaching its maximum potential, aquaculture will
play an increasingly important role in providing lost-cost, healthful
protein to all peoples. Without a strong commitment to aquaculture
research and development, the United States will find other nations
taking the leadership role in aquaculture development. We urge the
subcommittee to oppose these cuts. The NFI appreciates the opportunity
to submit these requests with regard to the fiscal year 2001 FDA
budget. Thank you for your consideration of these requests.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL FOOD PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Chairman, my name is John Cady, Chairman and CEO of the
National Food Processors Association (NFPA), and today I am submitting
testimony on behalf of NFPA. NFPA is the nation's largest food trade
association representing a $460 billion industry that includes an
estimated 20,000 manufacturing facilities and employees over 1.5
million Americans. With three laboratory centers, NFPA is the leading
authority on scientific and public policy issues involving food science
and safety for the food industry. For more than 90 years, the food
industry has relied on NFPA for government and regulatory affairs
representation, scientific research, technical services, education,
communications, and crisis management.
NFPA was formed at a time when it was necessary to enhance public
confidence in food safety, and we are proud of our contributions to
further enhancing the safety of our nation's food supply. NFPA enjoys
many partnerships with federal and state food safety regulatory
authorities, and we are committed to ensuring that these same
authorities are well equipped to protect public health and instill
confidence among consumers about the safety of the food products they
consume.
NFPA is particularly supportive of providing an adequate level of
funding for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). While
several federal agencies have responsibility for food safety and
quality programs, the FDA and FSIS share the primary responsibility for
food regulation.
USER FEES
The President's fiscal year 2001 Budget proposes new user fees--
more appropriately described as regulatory taxes--which require food
companies to pay for the privilege of being regulated. The fiscal year
2001 request proposes nearly $550 million in such user fees--$530
million for the FSIS and $13 million for the FDA's food regulation
program. NFPA appreciates that the Committee repeatedly has rejected
these proposals in past Administration budget requests, and recommends
again that funding of food safety and regulation programs should be
borne through appropriated funds.
Proposed user fees on the food industry are hidden taxes whose
costs would be borne both by producers and eventually consumers in
higher food prices. Furthermore, funding regulatory programs through
taxes raised from the industry would only serve to undermine public
confidence in the independent judgment of either FDA or the FSIS. We
urge the Committee to reject these user fee proposals.
FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE
NFPA appreciates the continued emphasis that Congress has placed on
food safety through its funding for the Food Safety Initiative for FDA,
USDA, and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in fiscal years fiscal
year 1998 through 2000. The fiscal year 2001 request represents the
fourth year of the Initiative, and we endorse most aspects of the
Initiative's request, particularly those areas that emphasize research,
risk assessment, education and surveillance. We request, however, that
the Committee remain vigilant in its oversight to ensure that
appropriated funds for food safety programs are deployed in a manner
commensurate with relative food safety risks.
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION'S FOOD REGULATORY PROGRAMS
NFPA supports the requested level of funding for FDA's food
regulation activities, but recommends, to the extent funds are provided
that priority be given to those areas of research, risk assessment,
education and surveillance. Such priority setting will ensure that
limited resources will be targeted toward foodborne illness problems
that pose the greatest risks. In addition, we support FDA's
infrastructure request for funding to administer the transfer of the
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) to College Park,
Maryland and to construct a new regional laboratory in Los Angeles,
California.
We also urge the Committee to protect funding for food science base
activities at CFSAN. While CFSAN has benefited from funding increases
in recent years, much of these increases have been absorbed by a
combination of dedicated funding for regulatory initiatives, and staff
salary increases and cost-of-living adjustments. This ``crowding out''
effect appears to have contributed to a slow, but steady, erosion in
FDA's ability to preserve its food science base. The continued decline
of FDA's scientific base can only imperil FDA's long-term capabilities
to respond rapidly and authoritatively to emerging scientific and
policy challenges that grow increasingly complex. We urge the Committee
to explore with FDA opportunities to support the integrity of CFSAN's
scientific capabilities.
FURTHER REFORMS NEEDED AT FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE
NFPA supports adequate resources for the FSIS, but is concerned
with reports of personnel management practices that have led to
inspector shortages and resulting plant slowdowns or work stoppages in
meat and poultry establishments. We urge the Committee to review this
problem to ensure the availability of inspection personnel via either
additional resources or management reforms, including alternative
inspection procedures.
NFPA supports the transition to a HACCP-based inspection system,
but notes that FSIS pledges to remove inspection regulations that are
inconsistent with HACCP have not been fully realized. We urge the
Committee to ensure that unnecessary layers of regulation are promptly
removed to speed HACCP implementation.
NFPA notes with approval the announced plan of FSIS to move toward
daily, unscheduled processing inspection in 2001. NFPA agrees that
daily, unscheduled processing inspection can free up appropriated funds
to address inspection shortages or other, greater relative food safety
risks. NFPA believes, however, that without arbitrary requirements for
frequency of inspection, unscheduled inspection in processing
establishments could yield even greater benefits. NFPA urges the
Committee to direct FSIS to explore methods of further maximizing this
flexible approach.
NFPA also recognizes the lead role that FSIS plays in overseeing
the work of the U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius. NFPA strongly
supports the fiscal year 2001 requested increase of $1 million for FSIS
Codex activities, and requests the Committee to providing an even
higher level of funding for this important function. Codex remains a
critically important forum for ensuring United States leadership in
international food safety activities.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, NFPA is grateful for the important funding oversight
that the Committee provides to ensure the integrity of U.S. food safety
regulation. The food industry endeavors to produce the safest and
highest quality food products in the world. As a result, NFPA
understands that adequate funding for our nation's food safety
regulators through direct appropriations is fundamental to good public
health, and to maintaining the confidence of consumers in the safety of
the food supply. NFPA appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony
on the President's fiscal year 2001 food safety budget request.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL GRAIN AND FEED ASSOCIATION
Chairman Cochran, Senator Kohl, and members of the subcommittee,
the NGFA is grateful for this opportunity to submit testimony on
Government aid to producers during this time of low commodity prices.
The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) consists of more
than 1,000 grain, feed, processing and grain-related companies that
operate 5,000 facilities that store, handle, merchandise, mill, process
and export more than two-thirds of all U.S. grains and oilseeds. About
70 percent of NGFA members are small businesses--country elevators and
feed mills. Also affiliated with the NGFA are 37 State and regional
agribusiness associations.
PRICES ARE LOW, BUT NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO MOVE BACKWARDS
As everyone knows, prices for farm commodities are low, and
according to recent baseline estimates released by the USDA and others,
are likely to see only slow increases over the next two years, barring
significant weather and crop production problems. This situation has
resulted in calls for a return to the failed policies of the past as a
way of artificially increasing crop prices. It is our opinion that the
results of such a decision would be disruptive to the long-term
prospects of the rural economy. Short-term blips in the market caused
by recession or depression in large country economies or in major
sections of the world can cause economic adjustment challenges, but
should not form the basis for major shifts in policy direction. Instead
of going backwards, and losing the progress the U.S. has made in
recapturing its market share, Congress should search for new ways of
increasing producer competitiveness and security through innovative,
flexible farm policy.
AN EXPANDED CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM IS COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE
On numerous occasions Government officials have told American
producers that the key to future prosperity was through exports, and
making inroads into rapidly developing overseas markets. The FAIR Act
of 1996 was a strong step toward restructuring American agriculture to
better compete in this new environment. One of the major changes the
Act wrought was ending annual acreage-reduction programs such as the
ARP, and shifting the focus of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
from supply control to conservation and environmental purposes. USDA
leadership has been outspoken on this point, with Secretary Glickman
stating on numerous occasions that the CRP would not be used by this
administration for supply control purposes.
In its fiscal year 2001 budget request, however, the administration
has reversed course by supporting an increase in the CRP's statutory
acreage cap to 40 million acres. In addition, several bills are pending
before the Agriculture Committees in Congress that would increase the
cap. Unfortunately, the goal of this activity seems to be to once again
use the CRP as a supply control tool in response to low commodity
prices. We believe such a dramatic policy shift will result in longterm
harm to the rural economy for the following reasons:
--Acreage idling in the U.S. has consistently failed to raise
commodity prices for producers over any appreciable length of
time;
--Acreage idling results in increased foreign production acreage; and
--Increased foreign production results in reduced market share for
U.S. producers at a time when global consumption is increasing.
Thus, acreage idling tends to both diminish farm income prospects
earned through commercial markets and increases farmers' dependence on
Government for more subsidies.
World commodity consumption will continue to grow
There has been a sharp increase in global consumption of
commodities over the past twenty years. The following table shows the
percentage of growth in global grain and oilseed consumption:
Growth in Consumption, 1980-1999
Percent
Rice.............................................................. +40
Wheat............................................................. +32
Feed grains....................................................... +19
Oilseeds.......................................................... +94
This trend is expected to continue. Most agricultural forecasts
call for a steady growth in grain, oilseed and meat consumption. With
world population expected to near 10 billion people by the year 2050,
global expansion in food markets over the long term is readily
predictable. Over the next ten years, global consumption of foodstuffs
will rise as developing nations in Asia and Latin America experience
strong economic growth. Improving personal income and affluence will
result in increasing demands for more and better quality foods, markets
that American producers can take full advantage of. They can't,
however, compete for these markets if they are hamstrung by an
artificial reduction in their production capacity.
Acreage idling fails to increase commodity prices
The following analysis uses a 5-year average of grains and oilseeds
acreage in millions of hectares around the 1980 (1978-1992) and the
1990 (1988-1992) crop years. It was during the time between these crop
years that the U.S. acreage-idling programs were at their peaks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-U.S.
U.S. hectares hectares World hectares
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1978-1982....................................................... 106,691 741,011 847,702
1988-1992....................................................... 92,027 757,375 849,202
-----------------------------------------------
Change.................................................... -14,664 +16,364 +1,700
Percent................................................... (-14) (+2.2) ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acreage Idling Price Impact:
Corn................................................ 1980=$3.10 pb
1990=$2.35 pb
Wheat............................................... 1980=$4.00 pb
1990=$3.00 pb
Soybeans............................................ 1980=$7.60 pb
1990=$5.90 pb
This is only one example of how the past policy of idling large
tracts of productive farmland did nothing to increase prices. In fact,
it cost U.S. farmers valuable revenue as foreign producers easily
filled the void.
Acreage idling increases foreign production acres
Overall, world production acreage has increased to take advantage
of the growth in consumption. Following the ineffective and misguided
embargo of grain and food trade with the former Soviet Union, the U.S.
chose a policy regime of high loan rates and heavy reliance on acreage
idling. From 1980 to 1995, the period of heaviest idling, the U.S.
shrank its production base while other nations more than replaced the
acreage that the U.S. unilaterally gave up:
Grains and Oilseeds Acreage Changes, 1980-1995
[In millions of acres]
U.S............................................................... -33
Foreign........................................................... +49
Foreign production of grains continued to grow; world consumption
continued to grow; the only economic factor that shrank was U.S.
acreage and our ability to compete for growing markets. Consequently,
U.S. market share of global grains and oilseeds markets declined
precipitously from nearly 27 percent to less than 21 percent. The U.S.
gave up tremendous market share during this period of heavy acreage
idling.
There is another adverse effect of increasing the CRP: the
Government essentially becomes another competitor against farm
operators for productive land. If land in a certain area is rented by
the Government, the rate that the CRP payments for that land are set at
become a de facto price floor for rent prices of non-CRP land in the
area. As one producer from Washington State recently told Secretary
Glickman, ``Farmers, especially young farmers, cant compete with the
CRP lease rate. You're forcing young farmers off the land!'' An
expansive CRP would further tighten already thin farming margins.
As stated above, one of the most important provisions of the FAIR
Act was to shift the focus of the CRP toward environmental and
conservation purposes. A return to expanded use of CRP for supply
control purposes will have a predictable and disastrous effect on long-
term market growth and farm income prospects.
CROP INSURANCE, RISK MANAGEMENT, AND GOVERNMENT'S ROLE
Instead of acreage idling, Congress should continue to examine
alternative means of aiding producers during times of low prices. One
alternative is crop insurance, and Congress has been debating this
issue for over a year. While crop insurance is a vital piece of the
risk management puzzle, we would urge Government to keep the following
points in mind:
--Crop insurance, cash forward contracts, futures/options and
agricultural trade options all are useful (or potentially
useful) products. But none of these products, standing alone,
is a ``complete'' risk-management tool; each should be
evaluated by the farmer on its merits and whether it benefits
individual operations. To encourage the private sector to make
more risk-management tools available to farmers, Government
should ensure that policies support all these tools. One policy
change that should be pursued quickly is to establish a
reasonable regulatory framework for agricultural trade options
to permit that tool to come into more common usage.
--Government should carefully consider what practical limits should
be placed on the subsidization of crop insurance. Excessive
subsidies for crop insurance can lead to: (1) excessive
commodity supplies causing depressed prices (a recent study
indicates excess supplies of 3 percent may be created by the
current subsidy structure); (2) disincentives for using other,
more efficient, tools for risk management; (3) distortions in
market signals guiding farmers' production/marketing decisions;
and (4) programs favoring certain types of farmers and regions
of the country. If properly limited and structured, crop
insurance subsidies can lead to prudent use of production and
yield risk-management tools that will also further encourage
sound marketing and pricing strategies for crops. [See also
item #5 of this section.]
--The Government should exercise extreme caution in subsidizing
price-insurance tools particularly price insurance tools that
replicate or offer similar features to existing futures-based
or cash-based products. There is a substantial risk that
Government subsidization of insurance-type products could
``crowd out'' non-subsidized market-based products, resulting
in less efficient markets, excessive taxpayer expenses and
ultimately rewarding poor management practices. Options traded
on futures exchanges, by providing price protection for a fixed
premium, function much like insurance and subsidization of
competitive products is counter-productive.
--The Government should consider a more neutral system of incentives
for risk management to enhance accessibility of risk-management
alternatives to more farmers. There is no single set of risk-
management tools that are ``right'' for the farmer. In some
cases, crop insurance ``works'' for the farmer; in other cases
the farmer is better off to self-insure. As for forward
contracting, the farmer may be more comfortable using certain
forms of contracts over others.
The role of Government should be to encourage farmers' use of
tools that are of greatest value to his/her individual
operation. To avoid creating distorted incentives in the
marketplace directed at certain categories of risk-management
tools, one policy concept would be to permit current crop
insurance subsidies to be ``portable.'' For example, if the
producer evaluated the subsidized crop insurance product and
decided it was not a prudent investment, a portability feature
would permit the farmer to take the subsidy embedded in the
insurance and apply it to the investment cost of other risk-
management tools. Such portability could be applied to all or a
portion of the embedded subsidy. The ultimate goal would be to
enhance accessibility and make more affordable a wide variety
of risk-management tools. In this regard, the NGFA is
supportive of the concept of ``multi-option'' risk management
incorporated in S. 1666.
--Government policies should be designed to encourage farmers to
begin marketing earlier in the production cycle. The longer a
producer delays selling or actively pursuing a marketing plan,
the fewer days remain in which a favorable pricing opportunity
may occur. Producers realistically can market a single crop
over a span of two or more years, starting a year or more prior
to harvest. Among policies that would encourage earlier
marketing are: (1) Purchasing crop insurance that can provide
the assurance of minimum yields; and (2) A viable program of
agricultural trade options, which would provide an early
pricing opportunity while permitting the farmer the option to
``walk-away'' (not deliver) on contract in the event of crop
failure or another event. Examples of policies that discourage
early marketing are: (1) subsidization of on-farm storage,
which tends to lead to a ``wait-and-see'' marketing strategy;
(2) extended loan programs, which provide a longer ``tail'' to
the marketing period but also may take away from early season
strategies because the producer knows he/she has the
opportunity to extend the marketing period; and (3) farmer-
owned reserve programs, which function largely like a long-term
extended loan program. Such programs also tend to build overall
stock levels that overhang the market and depress farm prices
for long periods.
As the debate continues over how best to support producers during
stressful economic times, we would urge Congress to craft policies that
provide improved support without creating marketplace distortion.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL POTATO COUNCIL
My name is Todd Michael. I am a potato farmer from Ohio 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
1997 was 465,800,000 cwt with a farm value of $2,402,000,000. 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 142.1 pounds in 1997 up from 107 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 National Potato Council's fiscal year 2001 appropriations
priorities are as follows:
Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service (CSREES)
Special Grant Program.--The NPC urges that $1.5 million be
appropriated for the special research grant program. The Congress
increased the level in fiscal year 2000 by $50,000 to $1.35 million.
However, that increase was lost due to the across-the-board cuts.
The NPC also urges that the Congress, once again, include report
Committee 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)--Facilities
Prosser, Washington.--Oppose the Administration's fiscal year 2001
budget request that $191,000 for potato research be terminated and
assure that full amount appropriated by the Congress in fiscal year
2000 is utilized by the ARS at Prosser.
Orono, Maine.--Oppose the Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget
request that $230,000 for potato research be terminated and assure that
the full amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000 is utilized by the ARS
at Orono. Support the Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget request
for an increase of $300,000 for Integrated Sciences for Ecological
Challenges.
Beltsville, Maryland.--Improving the nutritional value of potatoes
is a high priority of the NPC. Research should 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. Estimated cost would be $300,000 for fiscal year
2001.
Albany, California.--Dr. William Belknap in Albany has been funded
by ARS, with the support of the NPC, to develop genetic constructs for
potato transformation that will be publicly available without patent
restrictions on their use. His laboratory should serve as a source of
reagents for use by ARS scientists and others who work in the public
sector. Estimated cost of providing this service is an additional
$100,000 in fiscal year 2001 for Dr. Belknap's base budget.
Fort Collins, Colorado.--Support the budget request for $300,000
for the Soil, Plant, Nutrient Research Program to conduct research to
enhance water and soil quality with precision conservation farming.
Aberdeen, Idaho.--Appropriate $3 million for the construction of an
advanced molecular genetics laboratory at the National Small Grains
Germplasm Research Facility. This facility is needed to assure the
continuation of advanced molecular genetics research for potatoes and
small grains.
Committee Report Language.--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.
Yakima Agricultural Research Laboratory, Wapato, Washington:
``Potato research at the Yakima Agricultural Research Laboratory. The
Committee expects the Department to ensure that funds provided to the
Yakima Agricultural Research Laboratory for potato research are fully
utilized for potato research equivalent to 2.15 F.T.E. of Research
Entomologist effort, as directed by the ARS National Program Staff.
These 2.15 F.T.E. are to be distributed among a maximum of four
Research Entomologists. Further, this research is to be conducted
without dependence on, but may be supplemented by, local extramural
financial support.''
Plant Protection and Quarantine Service (APHIS-USDA)
The NPC urges that the Congress appropriate $580,000 for the Golden
Nematode Quarantine Program, which amount is the fiscal year 2001
budget request. The National Potato Council also supports the
appropriation of $100 million for the Agriculture Quarantine Inspection
(AQI) user fee account, and the fiscal year 2001 budget request for AQI
appropriated funds, for sanitary/phytosanitary (SPS) management and for
pest surveillance and detection.
FQPA Funding
Finally, the NPC also supports the Administration's budget request
for funds to meet the data requirements of the new Food Quality
Protection Act, (FQPA). The NPC has devoted considerable time and
resources to the evaluation of pesticides required by the FQPA.
However, it is essential that the USDA have adequate resources to
assist in this effort. Otherwise, given the tight time frame for these
assessments, the EPA will rely on default assumptions in the absence of
actual data.
______
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 2001 in the same amounts as
those contained in the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture
Appropriations Act which are the same levels as those requested
in the President's budget for fiscal year 2001 for hardship,
cost-of-money, Rural Telephone Bank and guaranteed loan
programs and the associated subsidy to fund those programs at
the existing level.
--Supporting funding in the amount of $25 million in loan and grant
authority designated for distance learning and telemedicine
purposes and the $2 million in direct loans and grants for a
pilot program to finance broadband transmission and local dial-
up Internet service in rural areas as requested in the
President's budget.
--Supporting an extension of the language removing the 7 percent
interest rate ceiling on cost-of-money loans.
--Supporting continuation of the restriction on retirement of Rural
Telephone Bank class A stock at the level contained in the
fiscal year 2000 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 and
loan subsidy costs.
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 primarily of commercial telephone companies which 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 Administration (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 which would duplicate
existing facilities providing 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\1/2\ million squares 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 telecommunications
``information superhighway'' technology and as customers and regulators
constantly demand improved and enhanced services.
At the same time, the underlying statutory authority which governs
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. The subsidy that remains has been targeted to the highest
cost, lowest density systems. Other loans are made at Treasury's cost-
of-money or greater.
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 with interest!
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.
These rapid technological changes and federal policies of
competition and deregulation in the telephone industry, as evidenced by
passage of the ``Telecommunications Act of 1996'', underscore the
continuing need for targeted assistance to rural areas. The inherently
higher costs to serve these areas have not abated. Regulatory trends
encouraging competition among telephone systems increase pressures to
shift more costs onto rural ratepayers. Interstate subscriber line
charges continue to shift substantial costs to local exchange
customers. Pressures to recover more and more of the higher costs of
rural service from rural customers to foster urban competitive
responses will further burden rural consumers.
1996 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT EFFECT ON RURAL AMERICA
Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as the
culmination of more than a decade of debating national
telecommunications policy and balancing many diverse needs and
interests. The 1996 Act responded to a number of rural needs and
differences with a series of safeguards to ensure that rates, services
and network development in rural America will be reasonably comparable
to urban telecommunications opportunities.
The process of implementing the new law continues to raise
troubling uncertainties and concerns about whether the FCC and the
states will honor the balance Congress achieved in its policy, as
regulators (a) radically revise the mechanisms for preserving and
advancing ``universal service,'' (b) adjust the cost recovery
responsibilities and allocations of authority between federal and state
regulation, (c) effectuate the Act's somewhat different urban and rural
ground rules for how new companies and incumbent universal service
providers connect their networks and compensate each other and (d) peel
back layers of regulation developed over a century. So far, the FCC has
been overzealous in expanding the Act's market-opening provisions to
give new entrants a regulatory head start and advantage at the expense
of the Act's rural development and universal service provisions. The
FCC is trying to usurp the role of competition by dictating a whole
new--and wholly inadequate--way to measure the costs of modern,
nationwide telecommunications access to information. The FCC needs to
reorder the sequence of its proceedings to ensure that rural Americans
are not denied the ongoing network development and new services the Act
requires. Rural telephone systems with universal service obligations
must not be thwarted in their efforts to upgrade and provide rates and
services reasonably comparable to urban offerings. The FCC must not
falter in delivery on these national policies either during or after
the difficult process of implementing the law. Congress and the courts
must carefully supervise the FCC's implementation to achieve the rural
access to information and an evolving modern public network intended by
Congress, as well as the benefits of deregulation and genuine
competition.
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 enacted in 1993 by Congress in Public Law
103-129.
These mandates coupled with the need for stable financing sources
to meet the infrastructure demands envisioned for rural areas by the
1996 telecommunications act amply demonstrate the continuing need for
this important program at the following levels:
5 percent Hardship Loans................................ $75,000,000
Cost-of-Money Loans..................................... 300,000,000
Guaranteed Loans........................................ 120,000,000
Rural Telephone Bank Loans.............................. 175,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 670,000,000
These are the levels established in the fiscal year 2000
appropriations act for the hardship, cost-of-money, Rural Telephone
Bank and guaranteed loan programs and are the same levels as those
requested in the President's budget. We believe that the needs of this
program balanced with the minimal cost to the taxpayer argue for its
continuation at enacted levels given the fact that it provides funding
for the neediest borrower systems serving the highest cost areas.
SPECIFIC ADDITIONAL REQUESTS
Continue the Removal of the 7 percent Cap on Cost-of-Money Loans
Again this year we are supporting removal of the 7 percent ceiling
on cost-of-money loans even though long-term Treasury rates are
currently below this level. This Committee included language in the
fiscal year 1996 act to permit borrower interest rates on cost-of-money
loans to exceed the 7 percent per year interest rate ceiling contained
in the authorizing act. The language has been continued in subsequent
acts. We support an extension of this provision in the fiscal year 2001
bill.
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
2001. 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 five years ago and
continued in last year's bill to retire no more than 5 percent of the
total class A stock in one year. We also urge the Committee to continue
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 2000) 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 Subsidy and Administrative Costs
In this same vein, we are also opposed to the proposal contained in
the President's budget again this year that the subsidy cost associated
with Rural Telephone Bank loans be funded by a transfer from the
unobligated balances of the bank's liquidating account rather than by a
traditional appropriation from the general fund of the Treasury which
has been the funding mechanism utilized for the bank since enactment of
the federal credit reform act in 1990. Requiring the bank to fund the
subsidy cost of its loans would dilute the interests of the bank's
stockholders. By definition, the bank's unobligated balances are not
exclusively federal funds but are subject to the respective ownership
interests of all the stockholders of the bank. This cost is more
properly funded through a regular appropriation from the general fund
of the Treasury.
The President's budget also proposes that the bank assume
responsibility for its administrative costs also 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.
The budget language acknowledges that neither proposal would result
in budgetary savings. Both proposals were specifically rejected again
last year by this Committee. No new justification for these
recommendations is contained in the budget. Both proposals would
require consideration by the authorizing committees and enactment of
new authorizing legislation as a prerequisite to an appropriation. As
of this date, no such legislation has been transmitted by the
Administration or is under consideration before the authorizing
committees.
Loans and Grants for Telemedicine, Distance Learning and Internet
Access
The President's budget requests $25 million in loan and grant
authority for fiscal year 2001 specifically devoted to 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 believe this program is particularly important.
Continuing to target funds in this manner spurs deployment of this
important new technology which is vital for the survival of rural
schools, hospitals and the rural communities they serve. At the same
time, we believe the level proposed strikes a cost effective balance
for the taxpayer.
We are also supporting the $2 million requested in the President's
budget for a pilot program of loans and grants to finance broadband
transmission and local dial-up access to the Internet in rural areas.
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 TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION
SUMMARY
The information age continues to evolve at lightening speed,
permeating every element of our existence. No longer a luxury at all,
today, access to advanced, affordable, communications infrastructure
and services, by every American, is an absolute necessity. Indeed,
federal, state, and local executives, legislators, and regulators, as
well as the general public, are demanding nothing less.
The small rural incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) segment of
the communications industry has responded to these demands with
outstanding vigor, providing perhaps the most exceptional
telecommunications services of anywhere in the nation. It has done so
through both a deep commitment to community and by having access to the
affordable financing that is available via the Rural Utilities Service
(RUS) Telecommunications Loan Program.
For over 50 years, NTCA's small rural ILEC members, in partnership
with the RUS, have fulfilled the joint statutory mission of both
providing and improving rural telecommunications service, with
distinction. With the RUS appropriately funded, they will be able to
continue that mission. Therefore, NTCA recommends full funding for all
accounts of the RUS Telecommunications Loan Program and its related
community development program. Additionally, NTCA recommends that
language be included in the fiscal year 2001 appropriations package
which will protect the program, and particularly the Rural Telephone
Bank (RTB), from frivolous or premature actions intended to redirect
their course.
BACKGROUND
NTCA is a national trade association representing more than 500
small, rural, cooperative and commercial incumbent local exchange
carriers (ILECs) located throughout the nation. These locally owned and
operated ILECs provide local exchange service to more than 5 million
rural Americans. Through the 50 year history 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 ILEC's,
evolved to serve high cost rural areas of the nation that were
overlooked by the industry's giants as unprofitable. And there can be
no doubt regarding the high cost of such markets. Consider that the
combined service area's of these ILECs constitutes approximately 40
percent of the nation's geographic area, yet the more than 5 million
subscribers served in this territory account for little more than 4
percent of the nation's total access lines. On average, RUS borrowers
have approximately 6 subscribers per mile of infrastructure line,
compared with 130 for the larger urban-oriented, non-RUS financed
systems. This results in an average plant investment per subscriber
that for RUS borrowers is 38 percent higher than for most other
systems.
Congress recognized the unique financing dilemma confronting
America's small rural ILECs as early as 1949. It was in that year that
it amended the Rural Electrification Act (RE Act) to create the Rural
Electrification Administration (REA) Telephone Loan Program, today
known as the RUS Telecommunications Loan Program. Through the years
Congress has periodically amended the RE Act to ensure that original
mission--to furnish and improve rural telephone service--was met. In
1971, the Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) was created 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 program lending facet,
the Treasury Cost of Money account.
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 federal
policies such as the Telecommunications Act of 1996 continue to evolve,
the high costs associated with providing modern telecommunications
services in rural areas will not diminish. Four years into the
implementation of the1996 Act, the Federal Communications Commission's
(FCC's) interpretation of the statute, and several court decisions,
have held little regard for congressional intent particularly with
respect to universal service which is so vital to small rural ILECs.
Consequently, the ongoing need for the well defined, understood, time-
tested RUS Telecommunications Loan Program is even greater.
For example, RUS telecommunications lending has stimulated billions
of dollars in private capital investment in rural communications
infrastructure. In recent years, on average, less than $10 million in
federal subsidy generated $670 million in federal loans and loan
guarantees. For every $1 in federal funds that were invested in rural
communications infrastructure, $4.50 in private funds were invested.
The RUS is also making a difference in our rural schools,
libraries, and hospitals. Since 1993, the RUS Distance Learning and
Telemedicine Grant and Loan program has funded approximately 350
projects throughout the nation for interactive technology in rural
schools, libraries, hospitals, and health clinics. To date,
approximately 704 rural schools and education centers have gained
access to improved educational resources through the information
superhighway by sharing limited teaching resources and gaining access
to libraries, training centers, vocational schools and other
institutions located throughout the country. This program has provided
unprecedented educational opportunities for rural students and enhanced
health care for rural residents.
In addition, two other RUS related programs are making a difference
in rural America. Formerly under the RUS, and known as the Zero
Interest Loan and Grant Program, the Rural Economic Development Grants
Program and the Rural Economic Development Loans Program 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 funding for project feasibility
studies, start-up costs, incubator projects and other expenses tied to
rural development.
NTCA'S APPROPRIATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
Fully Fund The RUS Telecommunications Loan Program.--Increasing
demand for expanded telecommunications services and infrastructure
upgrades indicates a continuing strong need for stable loan levels at
the authorizations established by the Rural Electrification Loan
Restructuring Act of 1993. NTCA is supporting loan levels for fiscal
year 2001 in the same amounts as those contained in the fiscal year
2000 Agriculture Appropriations Act, which are the same levels as those
requested in the President's budget for fiscal year 2001.
Hardship Account........................................ $75,000,000
Treasury-rate Account................................... 300,000,000
Guaranteed Account...................................... 120,000,000
Rural Telephone Bank Account............................ 175,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 670,000,000
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.
Prohibit The Transfer Of Unobligated Balances Of The RTB
Liquidating Account.--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 sweeping to
potentially occur. Restatement of this language will again ensure that
the RTB's private class B & class C stockholder are not stripped of the
value of their statutorily mandated investment in the Bank.
Prohibit RTB From Self Funding Subsidy And Administrative Costs.--
The Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget proposal suggests funding
the RTB's loan subsidies and administrative expenses out of unobligated
balances in the bank's liquidating account rather than out of the
general fund of the Treasury as is required by the RE Act. NTCA urges
Congress to reject this proposal, as it has in the past, for the
following basic reasons: (1) such action would require amendment of the
RE Act, (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.
Rural Telephone Bank Privatization.--Under the President's fiscal
year 2001 budget proposal, the RTB is proposed to ``become a
Performance Based Organization (PBO) to establish its financial and
operational independence prior to its being privatized within ten
years.'' At this time, it is difficult to support, or evaluate any
privatization proposal without first obtaining an answer to the
critical question of who owns the assets of the bank at any given time
during the privatization period, which is already underway at a minimal
statutory pace. Without a definitive and official determination of this
central issue, it is not possible to formulate an informed position
regarding privatization of the bank.
NTCA believes any privatization plan should be well conceived
before implementation. At the very least, privatization should proceed
in an orderly fashion with a full accounting of the various financial
and legal implications involved. Congress, RTB Stockholders, and the
rural telecommunications industry deserve the benefit of having RTB
privatization reviewed thoroughly, and not in the vacuum of the
budgetary process. In addition to having a high concentration of RTB
stockholders as members, NTCA itself is a RTB stockholder. The RTB's
portfolio is currently valued at well over $2 billion and consequently
it continues to play a critical role in the modernization of rural
telecommunications infrastructure throughout the United States. For
these reasons, the RTB's future will continue to be closely monitored,
and protected, by NTCA and its members. Furthermore, NTCA urges
Congress to refrain from commencing such deliberations without the
asset question answered, or in an effort to simply respond to the
administration's budget suggestion.
Continue RUS 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. NTCA
also supports the $2 million in direct loans and grants for a pilot
program to finance broadband transmission and local dial-up Internet
service in rural areas as requested in the President's budget.
Preserve RBCS Rural Development Grant and Loan Programs.--Likewise,
NTCA has witnessed the good these programs have done for rural
communities. NTCA requests adequate subsidy to support the current $15
million loan program.
Deploy NOAA Radio Weather Warning System in unserved or under-
served Rural Areas.--Rural areas traditionally do not have the same
access to reliable weather radio warning systems as more urban and
populated cities. Too often, lives are unnecessarily lost due to the
lack of knowledge and proper warning of an impending hurricane or
tornado. Therefore, NTCA is requesting adequate subsidy to support a $5
million loan program to facilitate a partnership between rural
utilities possessing commercial tower space and the national weather
service.
CONCLUSION
The RUS Telecommunications Loan Program bears a proud 50-year
record of commitment, service, and achievement to rural America. Never
in its entire history has the program lost even a dollar to abuse or
default--an unparalleled feat for any government-sponsored lending
program. Clearly such a successful program should remain in place to
guarantee rural Americans have the opportunity to play a leading role
in the information age. 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. Please help us accomplish that
objective.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
Chairman Cochran, Ranking Member Kohl, and distinguished Members of
the Subcommittee, my name is Colleen Kelley, and I am the National
President of the National Treasury Employees Union. The NTEU represents
more than 155,000 Federal employees, including those who work at the
Food and Drug Administration. I appreciate this opportunity to present
testimony to you today on behalf of the men and women who help ensure
our foods, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, and thousands of other
consumer products are safe. The actions of this subcommittee directly
affect their lives and the livelihoods of every American.
American consumers rightfully depend on their food to be free of
bacteria or other food borne diseases. They demand that we find cures
for terminal cancer and other deadly diseases. And they expect that
consumer products, such as mouthwash, toothpaste, or any other commonly
used product imported into the U.S. will not prove to be fatal.
Day in and day out, FDA's scientists, doctors, veterinarians, and
support personnel are working to ensure the safety of the American
people. From the most basic, but very important, task of educating
children about how to handle meats properly to avoid bacteria, to
approving new drugs to treat diabetes or depression, FDA employees are
working to protect and improve the health of the American people.
Let me share with you a couple of examples of the outstanding work
of our FDA employees. One of the most important duties of the FDA field
laboratories is to directly respond to local consumer complaints
regarding FDA regulated products. Recently a chemist working at the FDA
laboratory located in Denver, Colorado helped prevent the death of a
man who had gotten violently ill while drinking a soda. This FDA
chemist analyzed the soda and found it to be contaminated with barium
nitrate. This deadly chemical came from a sparkler, which had been put
into the soda. If this deadly chemical had not been accurately
identified in a timely manner, the man probably would have died.
However, thanks to the analysis and accurate identification of the
poisoning by the FDA chemist in Denver, the patient's doctor was able
to save the patient by knowing to treat him for barium poisoning.
At our laboratories in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Baltimore, and
other laboratories located at or near our nation's ports, FDA
microbiologists and investigators work with Customs officials to
quickly test and identify harmful foods which are trying to be
imported. When the FDA microbiologists determine that the foods pose a
risk to American consumers the foods are sent back to where they
originated.
In Rockville, Maryland, FDA chemists and scientists are quickly
developing and approving safe and effective drugs to help find cures
for cancer, AIDS, alzheimer's, and autism. They're working on drugs to
help ease the pain of heart burn and treat depression.
On any given day at an FDA laboratory in Missouri or California,
FDA scientists could be analyzing over-the-counter drugs for cyanide
contamination, examining baby food products for added glass fragments,
or analyzing wine for poisonous ethylene glycol contamination.
These are only a mere sampling of the day-to-day activities being
performed by the dedicated men and women who work at the FDA. And these
are only a few examples of why we need to increase the resources for
this agency.
I am pleased that the President has requested a 14.5 percent
increase in funding for the FDA for fiscal year 2001. We cannot expect
the FDA to continue to carry out its mission and protect the public
health, without the staffing and resources necessary to do the job. In
particular, I support FDA's request for increased staffing in a number
of critical areas, such as the food safety initiative, verifying the
safety of domestic and imported products, cracking down on illegal
Internet drug outlets, and improving the efficiency and timeliness of
the user fee program. These programs, as well as countless others
within FDA need additional staff to address the demands of protecting
and improving the health of the American public.
The FDA needs increased staffing in order to increase surveillance
and inspections of food: food that originates in this country, and food
that is imported. And the FDA needs more staff to address the
increasing demands to shorten the amount of time it takes to test
drugs, ensure their safety, and make them available to patients.
I also want to bring to your attention some concerns I have about
the FDA budget. As you know, the FDA is in the midst of a consolidation
of its laboratories, which are currently located in key locations
across the country. I share the agency's views that we need to
significantly improve the quality of FDA's laboratory infrastructure.
However, I do not believe that closing certain existing laboratories
will necessarily improve FDA operations and capabilities. Our nation
cannot afford to lose the knowledge and experience of these scientists
who have worked for many years in the FDA field laboratories. However,
if any laboratories are closed in the future, I would urge this
subcommittee to work to ensure that the FDA minimizes the impact on the
current FDA employees who would be affected, and the impact on FDA
operations in general.
In addition, I have serious concerns about proposals that have been
considered both in Congress and internally at the FDA which would
contract out work currently being performed by FDA employees. There is
an inherent conflict of interest when a company seeking approval for a
drug or food product is the same company granting the approval. I do
not believe the American public is prepared to entrust private
companies, most of which are driven by profit, to ensure the safety and
effectiveness of their drugs and food.
I believe that the FDA fiscal year 2001 budget request is a good
first step, but I believe that the level of funding requested by the
FDA should be viewed as a floor, not a ceiling. As the number and
complexity of drugs, food products and other FDA regulated goods in the
marketplace continues to increase, it is critical that the Congress
provide additional funding for staffing at the FDA. While I believe
that funding should be used to make technological improvements to FDA
laboratories and equipment, I am sure you will agree with me that
technology alone cannot possibly address the demands the agency now
faces.
I would like to thank the Subcommittee again for the opportunity
for our Union to present its views on the budget for fiscal year 2001.
As you continue your subcommittee's deliberations, I hope you will give
special consideration to FDA's dedicated workforce, a team of public
servants who have committed themselves to ensuring safe foods, drugs,
and medical devices for the American people.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL UTILITY CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Angelo Di
Paolo. I am President of the National Utility Contractors Association
(NUCA) and President of Di Paolo Company in Glenview, Illinois. I see
firsthand everyday the dire water and wastewater infrastructure needs
our country faces, so I sincerely appreciate your interest in
preventing public health and environmental disasters in rural
communities by adequately funding the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Rural Utilities Service (RUS) Water and Waste Disposal
infrastructure program for fiscal 2001.
FISCAL 2001 RECOMMENDATION
On behalf of NUCA's nearly 2,000 members and the citizens of rural
America who endure daily life without the basic wastewater
infrastructure that ensures clean drinking water and appropriate
disposal of waste, I respectfully request that the Subcommittee
appropriate a minimum of $700 million in budget authority for the RUS
Water and Waste Disposal Program. Further, I respectfully ask that
Congress allow the RUS to determine the most appropriate allocation of
the budget authority to loans and grants as it is in the best position
to target the grants toward the very poor while providing loans for the
relatively more well-healed communities.
RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL NEEDS AND THE RUS CURE
Imagine waking up, sleepily walking into the bathroom, turning the
shower faucet, and being greeted by stinky, murky water. Imagine being
unable to quench your thirst because only unfiltered water comes to
your house. Comparatively speaking, these are mild pictures of the
horrible circumstances that almost a million rural residents endure
daily. These Americans do not have potable water or effective waste
disposal systems. Moreover, the citizens facing these problems are
those least able to afford bottled water services. Generally, the
affected families live below the poverty level, $16,700. So even if
they aren't drinking contaminated water, they have no choice but to
wash and cook with it. Ironically, in the town serving as the namesake
for Deer Park bottled water, the locals were drinking unfiltered water
from shallow wells until the RUS funded a $1.7 million water system in
1998. RUS Water and Waste Disposal loan and grant programs provide such
funds for small communities with 10,000 or fewer residents that cannot
secure reasonable financing for drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure improvements. The majority of the residents are low-
income and cannot afford even the smallest ratepayer increases,
increases that would be certainties with other infrastructure funding
sources. Currently, there is a $3.8 billion backlog of applications
from needy communities that simply cannot afford to build their
infrastructure through other funding sources. At this time last year,
the backlog was only $3.2 billion. Today, communities must wait an
average of approximately three years from the start of an application
process to the time that RUS commits funds. During the three-year wait,
children and the elderly continue to be exposed to waterborne diseases
that have life-long or terminal effects on their health. No State is
immune from this problem. According to the USDA's recent best
estimates, at least 260,000 American homes still do not have complete
plumbing. Another 715,000 homes have critical problems with drinking
water quality, quantity, and availability. At least 1.1 million homes
have inadequate wastewater disposal systems that threaten human and
environmental health. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
estimated in 1997 that some 15 million households use private wells and
another 1 million homes rely on untreated water sources that include
cisterns and water hauled from springs, rivers, and lakes. In 1996, the
EPA estimated that small communities with 10,000 or fewer residents
face more than $13.8 billion in capital costs over the next two decades
for sewage collection and treatment works. That figure does not include
an estimation of septic system needs. These figures are considered by
most within EPA to be conservative estimates. Regardless how you look
at the needs, a $700 million investment would be worth every penny.
Despite their inability to afford other funding sources, the
communities historically do not default on RUS loans. Year after year,
the USDA maintains an unrivaled loan delinquency rate of just over one
percent and a long-term loss rate of one-tenth of one percent on the
wastewater loan program.
CONCLUSION
We, the members of NUCA, urge you to fund the RUS Water and Waste
Disposal loans and grants program at a minimum $700 million for fiscal
2001. Thank you for considering our recommendation.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL WATERSHED COALITION
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: The National
Watershed Coalition (NWC) is pleased to present this testimony in
support of some 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 that are continued are those that provide real
benefit to society, and are not programs that would be nice to have if
funds were unlimited. We believe that the Small 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 National Watershed Coalition is an alliance of national,
regional, state and local organizations that have a common interest in
advocating the use of the watershed when dealing with natural resource
issues. We also support the use of total resource management principles
in planning. We are advocates of both the Small Watershed Program and
the Flood Prevention Operations Program administered by USDA's Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). These resource protection
programs deserve much higher priority than they have had in the recent
past. Even in difficult financial times, and we keep hearing we are in
a period of budget surpluses, their revitalization would pay dividends
in monetary and other benefits, and jobs! The disastrous 1993 Midwest
floods and the floods in Texas in the fall of 1998 should have taught
us something. If one examines the Report of the 1994 Interagency
Floodplain Management Review Committee that studied the 1993 Midwest
flood event, we see that flood damages were significantly reduced in
areas where Public Law 566 projects were installed. The requests for
disaster assistance were also less.
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 use.
--They are programs that encourage all citizens to participate.
--They can address the needs of low income and minority communities.
--And best of all--they are programs the people like!
The National Watershed Coalition is concerned with the recent
Congressional lack of support for these watershed programs, with the
exception of the recent watershed rehabilitation efforts, and we hope
the outcome of the fiscal year 2001 appropriations process will 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.
In order to continue this high priority work in partnership with
states and local governments, the Coalition recommends a fiscal year
2001 funding level of $250 million for Watersheds and Flood Prevention
Operations, Public Law 83-566 and Public Law 78-534. We recommend that
$30 million of this amount be for Public Law 78-534 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. It should be funded as a separate
program. 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 some 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 2001. We also recommend that
watershed surveys and planning be funded at $25 million, which
represents the true need.
We would also suggest that $55 million be used for structural
rehabilitation and replacement, in accordance with H.R. 728 recently
introduced in the 106th Congress by Representatives Frank Lucas and Wes
Watkins of Oklahoma, and S. 1762 introduced in the Senate by Senators
Paul Coverdell of GA, and Blanche Lincoln of AR, and that another $5
million be available for a thorough assessment of rehabilitation needs.
The recognition of watershed rehabilitation as a national priority is
gaining support throughout the countryside.
We recognize that Congress may be thinking of lesser amounts for
these programs, but we believe we are not doing our job of helping you
recognize the true need if we continually recommend the federal share
of these needed funds be less. We would hope that everyone understand
that these funds are only a part of the total that are committed to
this vital purpose. The local project sponsors in these ``federally
assisted'' endeavors have a tremendous investment also. We also suggest
that the Emergency Watershed Program (EWP) be provided with $20 million
to allow the NRCS to provide rapid response in time of natural
disaster. Our recommendations are considerably different from those
proposed by the Administration for the fiscal year 2001 budget.
Congress increasingly talks of wanting to fund those investments in our
nation's infrastructure that will sustain us in the future. Yet this
and past Administration's budgets have regularly cut funding for some
of the best of these programs. This makes absolutely no sense! We
continue to read that we are in a period of budget surpluses, almost as
if the federal coffers were overflowing with cash, yet there is next to
nothing for watershed protection and improvement. Our Gross Domestic
Product has risen for over 93 straight months, unemployment is low, the
stock market has risen to new highs, and 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
priority?
The issue of the current condition of those improvements
constructed over the last fifty years with these watershed programs is
a matter of great concern. Many of the nearly 10,500 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 ten 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, which indicated the current
national needs were about $540 million. That is the reason we are
recommending starting with $60 million ($55 million for rehabilitation
work and $5 million to start a more precise assessment of needs) for
the work necessary to protect these installed structures, and commend
Oklahoma Representatives Lucas and Watkins for their leadership in
introducing H.R. 728, the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of
1999, and Sens. Coverdell and Lincoln for introducing S. 1762, the
Small Watershed Rehabilitation Act in the Senate. Watershed project
sponsors throughout the U.S. appreciate their leadership on this vital
issue. 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.
In addition to offering our thoughts on needed conservation program
budget levels, we would like to express our great concern with the way
in which the Administration's budget proposes to change the watershed
program funding in fiscal year 2001. We will address each ``account''
in some detail as to the adverse impacts we see.
WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS
The Administration proposes $83,423,000, a decrease of $16,010,000
from the grossly inadequate funding of fiscal year 1999. They talk of
their concern for the environment, but it is not reflected in their
budget proposals. This account needs $250 million!
Of the funds proposed under the Public Law 566 authority, no funds
are specifically suggested for the Public Law 534 projects, only $8
million is available from the Public Law 566 account for Public Law 534
projects, a decrease of $7 million--or 47 percent--from fiscal year
1999. This is unacceptable.
No funding is proposed to address the aging watershed
infrastructure problem which poses great risk to human health, safety
and quality of life, and which we discussed earlier. We suggest $60
million is needed in fiscal year 2001. Pass H.R. 728 & S. 1762!
The Administration's budget mentions that ``up to $4,170,000'' of
their proposed watershed and flood prevention budget amounts might be
used for ``the cost of loans for rehabilitation of upstream watershed
dams.'' This is entirely unsatisfactory! Rehabilitation needs and a way
to approach them are adequately addressed in the two bills working
their way through Congress (H.R. 728 and S. 1762). They should be cost-
share programs as the Bills propose, and not loan programs. Watershed
project sponsors do not need federal loans; they need their federal
partner to pay their agreed-to share of the work put on the landscape
by the partnership. The Administrations budget proposal would again
penalize the ongoing national watershed programs by taking away money
sorely needed to complete ongoing projects.
WATERSHED SURVEYS AND PLANNING
The Administration proposes $10,368,000 for these vital planning
activities, and we believe $25 million is a more realistic figure
considering the need. There are many potential projects and project
sponsors in every state wanting watershed planning assistance, and that
assistance is not available. And this at a time when our federal
government is encouraging the watershed approach and local leadership.
Here we have the ideal partnership cost-share program that encourages
local leadership, and the federal share of the funds is not there.
EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM.
The Administration proposes no funds to maintain readiness to deal
with emergencies caused by natural disasters, or maintain any technical
staff capacity. This makes no sense! We suggest that $20 million be put
into this account to provide rapid early response, and then deal with
total disaster needs for each incident with supplemental appropriations
as in the past.
The Administration's budget also uses language that appears a bit
deceiving. They say that ``$2 million is proposed to provide technical
assistance to communities for disaster mitigation planning,'' and ``$3
million is proposed to provide technical and financial assistance to
communities to implement disaster mitigation plans.'' None of this is
new and the NRCS has been providing this assistance from their various
budget accounts for years.
There are a number of suggestions we would like to make concerning
this very important legislation, that we will be making to other
committees and they have budget implications. We believe the objectives
of this legislation should be expanded to include more non-structural
water quality practices, allow the law to provide assistance in
developing rural water supplies (without water there is no rural
development) and eliminate the current requirement that mandates that
twenty percent (20 percent) of the total projects benefits be
``directly related to agriculture'' which can be very subjective and
has the unintended effect of penalizing poor, small, rural communities,
many of which are minority communities.
The Coalition appreciates the opportunity to offer these comments
regarding fiscal year 2001 funding for the water resource programs
administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. 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 the capability to support their responsibilities in these program
areas is seriously diminished. This is a disturbing trend that needs to
be halted. 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 ever
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.
We are also disappointed that the subcommittee has a practice of
not accepting oral testimony from organizations such as the National
Watershed Coalition. When we were allowed to make an oral presentation
in the House, we were able to talk to subcommittee members who could
ask us questions. It was a chance for them to actually talk with people
doing the work on the land. That personal contact in both houses is now
missing, and it would be easy to think that our written testimony may
not be seriously considered. We hope you will reconsider this practice
in future years, and again allow oral testimony.
The Coalition pledges its full support to you as you continue your
most important work. Our Executive Director/Watershed Programs
Specialist Mr. John W. Peterson, who has over forty 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
email address is [email protected].
Thank you for allowing the National Watershed Coalition (NWC) this
opportunity.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to submit this testimony for the record on fiscal year 2001
appropriations for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
and for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).
The Nature Conservancy is an international, non-profit organization
dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is
to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent
the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they
need to survive. The Conservancy has over a million individual members
and over 1,500 corporate sponsors. We currently have programs in all 50
states and in 20 nations. To date our organization has protected more
than 11 million acres in the 50 states and Canada, and has helped local
partner organizations preserve millions of acres overseas. The
Conservancy itself owns more than 1,600 preserves--the largest private
system of nature sanctuaries in the world. Three concepts have been
fundamental to our success: sound science; strong partnerships with
public and private landowners; and tangible results at local places.
The Conservancy is deeply committed to working with agricultural
producers to conserve biodiversity on private lands. We currently work
with local landowners at approximately 75 sites across the country to
implement conservation on the ground, and plan to increase this number
to 500 sites within the next decade. Conservation programs administered
by NRCS are highly popular with producers because they provide
voluntary tools to manage landscapes and reduce the need for regulatory
compliance. The programs also serve as an important additional source
of income for economically distressed producers.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Conservancy recommends:
--The appropriations committee to fund the enrollment of a total of
150,000 acres in the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) for fiscal
year 2001, should the authorizing committee not approve new
acres for enrollment in the program. We also urge the committee
not to target WRP to offset other expenditures.
--EQIP funding of $300 million for fiscal year 2001. We also urge the
committee not to target EQIP to offset other expenditures.
--Full support of the President's budget request for $747 million in
appropriations to the conservation operations account for NRCS.
This appropriation principally supports the agency's basic
conservation program, called conservation technical assistance.
--Full support of the President's budget request for $10.5 million
for APHIS to enhance its capability to fight invasive species
as called for by the recently signed Executive Order.
WETLAND RESERVE PROGRAM (WRP)
The agriculture conservation program most important to the
Conservancy is the WRP. This program makes a sizeable amount of money
available to producers who enroll in the program after having concluded
that the best economic return on their land would be from the receipt
of program dollars rather than from crop or livestock production.
Because wetlands provide excellent habitat for wildlife, the program
serves the Conservancy's mission of habitat conservation, and at the
same time provides farmers who elect to enroll in the WRP with the
opportunity to generate income by renting WRP acres to hunting groups.
The Conservancy strongly supports WRP because it is the only
program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that at
least in part buys permanent protection for resource values on private
lands. These values include: (1) conservation of wildlife habitat, (2)
purification of groundwater runoff and, (3) regulation of the flow of
water in watershed systems by storing surface and groundwater.
Permanent protection of environmentally significant resources is the
best investment of public conservation dollars. In these times of
economic distress for many producers, making financial options
available for producers that also results in conservation benefits for
the general public is good public policy.
The 1996 Farm Bill authorized the enrollment of 975,000 acres for
WRP. Only 40,000 of these acres remain to be enrolled in fiscal year
2001. The Conservancy recommends that the appropriations committee fund
a WRP enrollment level of 150,000 acres in fiscal year 2001, should the
authorizing committee not approve new acres for the program. Should the
authorizing committee approve additional acres, we ask the
appropriations committee not to use the WRP account to offset other
expenditures.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVE PROGRAM (EQIP)
The Conservancy seeks a $100 million increase in funding for EQIP
for fiscal year 2001, for a total of $300 million. In addition, we urge
the committee not to target EQIP to offset other expenditures. The
agricultural conservation community recognizes the significant
contribution made by farm runoff to the impairment of our nation's
watersheds. An important strategy for addressing this problem must be
voluntary farm runoff abatement measures, such as that provided by the
EQIP program. The increased funding recommended will begin to help
animal feeding operators in financial distress deal with regulatory
pressure to keep water clean.
CONSERVATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Agricultural production depends on the conservation of the soil and
water resource base. NRCS and the Conservancy both know that
conservation will succeed ultimately only to the extent that it also
serves the need of producers to engage in economically viable farming.
NRCS has a relationship of trust with private landowners that is
unusual among federal agencies. It takes a non-regulatory, voluntary
approach to conservation. The voluntary conservation programs
administered by NRCS, along and the Conservation Reserve Program
administered by the Farm Service Agency, provide farmers with highly
effective tools for conserving soil and water resources.
NRCS provides conservation technical assistance through their
district conservationists, who give free advice to producers interested
in managing the natural resources on their land. In addition, district
conservationists provide a number of products requested by producers.
These include conservation management systems for a variety of land
types, irrigation water management plans, animal waste management
plans, program eligibility determinations, wetland creation or
restoration plans, conservation education, and long-term strategic
resource planning to individuals and communities.
Congress appropriated $661 million for the agency in fiscal year
2000. The current demand for these services approximately doubles NRCS'
ability to provide them. The Conservancy believes that if NRCS is not
funded at a level sufficient to provide these services, the resource
base on private lands will be impaired and biodiversity will be put at
greater risk. In particular, NRCS will have difficulty providing
technical assistance in support of the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP)
and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in the absence of full
funding of the conservation technical assistance account.
A comprehensive clean water policy at the federal level must
include funding for the tools that enable producers to implement
voluntarily conservation practices and regulatory activities. An
increase in appropriations for conservation technical assistance is
needed this year in particular because of the increased requirements
for animal feeding operators to change practices that affect water
quality. For all of these reasons, we ask the Committee to give full
support to the President's request of $747 million for NRCS
conservation operations.
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS)
The President signed an executive order in February 1999 that
directs the federal government to make a concentrated and coordinated
effort to fight invasive species. The 2001 budget request for APHIS
reflects this heightened attention in two accounts which are of
greatest importance to the Conservancy. First, the President requested
an increase of $1.7 million for the noxious weed account within the
area of pest and disease management. This amount would be used by APHIS
to begin developing a national rapid assessment and response system for
invasive plants. Rapid detection of new invasions may be the most
effective means for managing the presence of invasive plants on our
lands.
Second, the President requested $8.8 million to fund a new account
for invasive species. These funds would be used to gain a better
understanding of the pathways through which invasive plants spread
through the United States; to collect baseline data on the presence of
invasive plants, and to further develop eradication and/or management
programs; and, to conduct public education. These activities are
critical to successfully fighting the invasive species that are
destroying the biological and economic value of our natural and grazing
lands.
We appreciate the support that you have shown for agriculture
conservation through the years, and appreciate this opportunity to
present a written statement to your committee. The Conservancy looks
forward to working with you on these issues in this and future
agriculture appropriations bills.
______
PREPARE 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 at the level
necessary to control salinity with respect to water quality standards
of the basin states. Also, this failure to provide adequate funding
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 fund needed salinity control measures. I urge that the
administration's recommended funding of $325,000,000 be appropriated
for EQIP, with at least $12,000,000 designated to the Colorado River
Basin salinity control program.
STATEMENT
The Colorado River Basin salinity control program was authorized by
Congress in the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974. The
Act was amended by Congress in 1984 to give new responsibilities to the
Department of Agriculture. The seven Colorado River Basin states, in
response to the Clean Water Act of 1972, formed the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control 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 necessary 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.
Many of the most cost-effective projects undertaken by the salinity
control program have occurred since implementation of Department of
Agriculture's authorization for the program. The Bureau of Reclamation
is currently completing studies on the economic impacts of the salinity
of the Colorado River in the United States. Reclamation's study
indicates that damages in the United States may soon be approaching $1
billion per year. 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.
However, with the enactment of the Federal Agriculture Improvement
and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIRA), the Congress concluded that the
salinity control program could be most effectively implemented as one
of the components of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
Since the enactment of FAIRA, the salinity control program has not been
funded at a level adequate to ensure that water quality standards in
the Colorado River, with respect to total dissolved solids (salinity),
will be honored, nor is the funding sufficient to prevent salt loading
from irrigated agriculture in the Upper Colorado River Basin from
impacting the quality of water delivered to Mexico under Minute No. 242
of the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and
Mexico.
The salinity control program has been subsumed by the EQIP program
without the Secretary of Agriculture giving adequate recognition to the
requirement in Section 202 (c) in the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Act to carry out salinity control measures. Water users
hundreds of miles downstream are the beneficiaries of this water
quality protection and improvement program. Irrigated agriculture in
the Upper Basin sees local benefits as well as the downstream benefits
and have submitted cost-effective proposals to the State
Conservationists in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado. Priority Area proposals
for EQIP funding are ranked in each state under the direction of the
NRCS State Conservationist. Existing ranking criteria, however, does
not consider downstream benefits (particularly out of state benefits)
when proposals are being evaluated.
The Department of Agriculture, following protracted urging by the
Basin states, has concluded as a result that the salinity control
program is different than the small watershed approach of the EQIP
program. The watershed for the salinity control program stretches
almost 1200 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.
The Basin states were led to believe by Congressional staff that
when the EQIP program was created, the $200,000,000 annual Commodity
Credit Corporation (CCC) borrowing authority given to the Secretary
would ensure that through the year 2002 at least the requested amount
of funding would be expended for the EQIP program. The Basin states,
including New Mexico, have been very dismayed that funding for EQIP was
reduced to $174,000,000 last year. This level of funding is not
adequate for this most important nationwide program and the
Administration does not believe that it provides sufficient funds to
implement National Priority Areas as allowed by Congress under FAIRA.
The Forum urges that the funding for EQIP for fiscal year 2001 total
$325,000,000.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) earmarked funds
to use in areas of special interest in the amount of about $5.3 million
last year. The states added about $2 million in up-front cost-sharing
and local farms contributed about $2.3 million. The plan for salinity
control of the water quality of the river, prepared and adopted by the
Basin states, shows that the USDA portion of the effort must be funded
at $12 million per year in order to comply with water quality standards
and offset significant salinity damages in the United States.
State and local cost-sharing is triggered by the federal
appropriation. The entire effort last year was funded at only about 44
percent of program needs. The requested funding of $12 million for
fiscal year 2001 will continue to be needed each year for at least the
next few fiscal years. The Department of Agriculture 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 in
the cost-sharing fashion provided by the Congress. 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
Department of Agriculture projects have proven to be the most cost-
effective component of the salinity control program. However,
Administration and Congressional funding support has dramatically
declined despite increasing damages from the salinity of the Colorado
River.
I urge the Congress to appropriate $325,000,000 from the CCC in
fiscal year 2001 for EQIP. Also, I request that Congress advise the
Administration that $12,000,000 of the appropriation is to be
designated for the Colorado River Basin salinity control program.
Finally, I request that adequate funds as requested by the
Administration be appropriated for technical assistance and education
activities at the local level, rather than requiring the NRCS to borrow
funds from CCC for the direly needed support functions.
______
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 commercial harvests costs which will assist the
tribes in fulfilling the demands for their shellfish products
in 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 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 harvesting subsidized our income
when we were unable to support our families from the finfish revenues
only.
Then came civilization, Tribal beaches were sold by the State to
non-Indians, and the waters were polluted and contaminated which
greatly impacted the resource. And today, at a time when efforts are
underway to restore the Pacific Coastal Salmon, Western Washington
Tribal fishers are unemployed because there are no salmon. We ask this
Committee to help us to restore our shellfish harvesting which will
enable us to participate in the shellfish trade industry once again.
Assist the tribes in fulfilling the demands for their shellfish
products, $500,000
Shellfish harvested by members of Western Washington's Indian
tribes is highly sought after throughout the United States and the Far
East. We request $500,000 which will assist Tribes in promoting our
shellfish products, in both domestic and international markets. We are
now at a point in time when telecommunicating is both cost effective
and timely when marketing products. Tribal fishers are not capable of
supporting such an effort individually, but, could collectively benefit
if such a network could be developed through the Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission and the Northwest Indian College in Bellingham,
Washington. This institution is capable of providing the technology
needed to implement such a marketing program for Tribal shellfish
products.
Water and Pollution Sampling, Sampling and Research for paralytic
shellfish poisoning and coordination of research projects with
State 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 data and technical information exists for many of the
Tribal 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 also is
necessary to ensure 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.
TRIBAL SHELLFISH RESOURCE
Shellfish have been a mainstay of western Washington's Indian
tribes for thousand of years. Clams, crab, oysters, shrimp, and many
other species were readily available year 'round. The relative ease
with which large amount could be harvested, cured, and stored for later
consumption made shellfish an important source of nutrition--second
only in importance to salmon.
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 growth in the
human population, 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.
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. 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, Jan. 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.
Soon after they were signed, the treaties were forgotten or
ignored. The influx of non-Indian settlers into western Washington
continued to grow with each passing year, and the tribes were slowly
excluded from their traditional shellfish and finfish harvest areas.
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 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 have worked
together to develop comprehensive fisheries that ensure harvest
opportunity for Indian and non-Indian like, and also preserve 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, June 1999, the U.S.
Supreme Court denied review of the District court ruling, effectively
confirming the treaty shellfish harvest right.
Thank you.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE OCEANIC INSTITUTE
ARS AQUACULTURE FEEDS AND NUTRITION PROGRAM
The overall goal of the program is to advance feeds technologies to
enhance global competitiveness of U.S. feeds, agricultural ingredients
used in feeds, and aquaculture products. The program is managed by the
Oceanic Institute (OI), a world leader in feeds and nutrition
technology. It technically supports and assists the aquaculture and
aquafeed manufacturing sector and associated industries, including feed
ingredient suppliers and exporters. The program conducts basic as well
as applied research that focuses on developing and disseminating new
and improved aquatic feeds and associated feeding technologies. These
strategies are designed to be economically viable and environmentally
compatible with the sustainable development of the aquaculture sector.
Aquatic feeds and feeding generally represent the largest single
operating cost item (typically between 25 to 50 percent) of the total
running expenses of most intensive and semi-intensive finfish and
crustacean farming operations. Although the U.S. currently ranks first
in terms of the global production of industrially manufactured animal
feeds, its domestic aquaculture sector is still emerging and modest
compared to the terrestrial livestock production sector, with the total
compound aquafeed production accounting for about 4 percent of total
global aquafeed production in 1998. However, the global production of
aquaculture feeds depends heavily on agricultural exports from the U.S.
With the aquaculture sector currently representing the fastest growing
segment of U.S. and global agriculture (surpassing in value most
domestic fruit, vegetable, and nut crops), the potential for increased
aquaculture and therefore aquafeed production in the U.S. and globally
using U.S. agricultural ingredients is considerable.
The program's recent achievements include the following: (1)
demonstrating the technical feasibility of using lower cost shrimp
aquafeeds in advanced biosecure, zero-water exchange culture systems;
(2) improved processing methods for overall improvement in growth
rates, feed conversion efficiencies and water quality; (3) development
of improved shrimp feed formulations which take into account the
dietary nutrient requirements of the cultured shrimp and that of the
living microbial community within warmwater aquaculture systems; (4)
development of improved feed processing techniques, including
ingredient particle size reduction, mixing, pelleting, and extrusion
processing, for increasing feed nutrient digestibility and
availability, with consequent improvements in shrimp growth and reduced
feed wastage and pollution; (5) development of improved analytical
techniques for the measurement of nutrients in feed ingredients and
finished feeds, including the successful publication of an analytical
procedures manual for aquaculture feeds and feed ingredients for the
American Feed Industry Association; and (6) increased use of U.S. feed
ingredient sources (i.e., such as soybean meal, corn gluten meal,
animal byproduct meals from the animal rendering industry, grains--
wheat, corn) as sources of high grade dietary protein and energy for
use within aquafeeds, and thereby minimizing imports in the form of
fishmeal, fish oil, and other nutrient inputs.
Some of the program's research highlights in the past year have
included the development of new feed formulations and feeding regimes
that enabled the production of market size shrimp in only eight weeks
(as opposed to the normal 12-16 weeks), with average weekly growth
rates in excess of two grams per week. The program demonstrated the
particular importance of improved feed and water management and the use
of optimum dietary feeding regimes to elicit maximum growth and feed
efficiency.
The program has recently assumed a critical role in the development
of a new technology package which offers the U.S. substantial worldwide
competitive advantage in the domestic farming of marine shrimp. The
emerging zero-exchange biosecure marine shrimp production systems are
fully dependent upon new and novel feed formulations, ingredients, and
feeding methods. The systems will permit the U.S. to compete in the
world market with systems that provide for protection from disease and
full compatibility with the natural environment and also are less
expensive. The aquaculture feeds program has already identified ``key''
feed fundamentals which allow the exploitation and integration of
genetically improved and disease free shrimp stocks, virus free
production methods, and zero environmental impact. It is clear that
these advanced production systems are dependent on new feeds technology
and feeding methods.
The Oceanic Institute has added world-class scientists to its
program staff including nutritionists, feed processing technologists,
microbiologists and computer modelers. Solid science, first class
facilities and close interactions with genetic and health programs are
coming together for major technology advances to benefit the United
States. The OI model has been recently adopted by government agencies
in parallel fresh water aquaculture efforts. An Industry Liaison
Committee (composed of experts representing the various sectors of the
aquatic feed manufacturing and shrimp farming industries, including
commercial feed producers, feed equipment manufacturers, animal
nutrition specialists, and commercial shrimp farmers within the U.S.)
supported by the Agriculture Research Service, has given full
endorsement to the program in its recent review.
We ask for your continuing support of this aggressive, highly
productive and model research and development program.
______
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 2001 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.......................................... $75
Treasury rate loans............................................... 300
guaranteed loans.................................................. 120
RTB loans......................................................... 175
In addition, OPASTCO requests the following action by the
Subcommittee: (1) removal of the statutory 7 percent cap on Treasury
rate loans for fiscal year 2001; (2) a prohibition on the transfer of
unobligated RTB funds to the general fund of the Treasury; (3)
opposition to the Administration's proposal to fund the RTB's loan
subsidies and administrative expenses from the bank's liquidating
account; and (4) funding of the distance learning and telemedicine
grant and loan program at sufficient levels, including funding for the
Administration's proposed pilot program to finance broadband
transmission and local dial-up Internet service.
GENERAL
OPASTCO is a national trade association of more than 500
independently owned and operated telecommunications carriers serving
rural areas of the United States. Its members, which include both
commercial companies and cooperatives, together serve over 2.5 million
customers in 42 states. Over 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 program been so vital to the future of
rural America. The telecommunications industry is at a crossroads, both
in terms of technology and public policy. Advances in
telecommunications technology in recent years will deliver on the
promise of a new ``information age.'' The Federal Communication
Commission's (FCC) 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.
However, without continued RUS and RTB support, 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 an expected and needed part of a customer's
telecommunications service. Unfortunately, the inherently higher costs
of upgrading rural networks, 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. RUS borrowers average only 6.3 subscribers per route mile
versus 130 subscribers per route mile for large local exchange
carriers. In order for rural telephone companies to modernize their
networks and provide their customers 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 distance learning, telemedicine, and high-
speed Internet connectivity that can alleviate or eliminate some rural
disadvantages. Telecommunications 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
the RUS 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 gets
paid back 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
TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS AND RTB PROGRAMS
The FCC's implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 will
only increase rural telephone companies' 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. This
year, the FCC is expected to convene a Federal-State Joint Board to
revisit the universal service definition, as the Act anticipates. While
the competitive environment engendered by the 1996 Act may offer the
means of meeting this evolving definition in urban areas, rural and
high cost areas have less potential for economically sound competitive
alternatives. RUS has an essential role to play in the implementation
of the law, as it will compliment new funding mechanisms established by
the FCC and enable rural America to move closer to achieving the
federally mandated goal of rural/urban service and rate comparability.
At present, considerable regulatory uncertainty exists for rural
telephone companies as several critical FCC proceedings implementing
the 1996 Act remain unresolved. These include fundamental changes to
the universal service and access charge systems and the procedures
incumbent carriers use to separate their costs between the Federal and
state jurisdictions. In addition, uncertainty exists as to whether
rural incumbent carriers will be able to recover the costs of the
extensive additional regulatory obligations and potential broadband
deployment demands placed on them. If these outstanding issues are
resolved in a piecemeal fashion and/or with a strong bias toward new
entrants, rural incumbent carriers with universal service obligations
could be hampered in their ability to modernize their networks and
provide quality, affordable service to all of their customers. Managed
sequencing and coordination of existing proceedings is necessary if the
Commission is to preserve Congress's public policy goals of affordable
rates and access to an evolving telecommunications network for all
Americans. Equally important is for Congress to monitor the FCC's
implementation of the Act to ensure that all of its goals--including
universal service, an even playing field for competition, and
deregulation--are realized in rural areas.
A $75 MILLION LOAN LEVEL SHOULD BE MAINTAINED FOR THE 5 PERCENT
HARDSHIP LOAN PROGRAM
One of the most vital components of RUS's telecommunications loans
program is the 5 percent hardship loan program. These loans are
referred to as hardship loans for good reason: They provide below-
Treasury rate financing to telephone companies serving some of the most
sparsely populated, highest cost areas in the country. The commitment
these companies have to providing modern telecommunications service to
everyone in their communities has made our nation's policy of universal
service a reality and, in many cases, would not have been possible
without RUS's hardship loan program. Companies applying for hardship
loans must meet a stringent set of eligibility requirements and the
projects to be financed are rated on a point system to ensure that the
loans are targeted to the most needy and deserving. For fiscal year
2001, the government subsidy needed to support a $75 million loan level
is under $7.8 million. Given the necessity of this indispensable
program, it is critical that the loan level be maintained at $75
million for fiscal year 2001.
removal of the 7 percent cap on treasury rate loans should be continued
With regard to RUS's Treasury rate loan program, OPASTCO supports
the removal of the 7 percent ceiling on these loans for fiscal year
2001. This Subcommittee appropriately supported language in the fiscal
year 1996 Agriculture Appropriations Act to permit Treasury rate loans
to exceed the 7 percent per year ceiling contained in the authorizing
act. The language has been continued in each subsequent year. Were
long-term interest rates to exceed 7 percent, adequate subsidy would
not be available to support the Treasury rate loan program at the
authorized levels. Accordingly, OPASTCO supports the continuation of
this language in the fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill in order to
prevent potential disruption to this important program.
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 the language introduced
in the fiscal year 1997 Agriculture Appropriations Act, and continued
in the years following, 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 RTB requires telephone
companies to purchase Class B stock in the bank. Once all loans are
completely repaid, a borrower may then convert its Class B stock into
Class C stock. 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 2001
appropriations bill will ensure that RTB borrowers are not stripped of
the value of this required investment.
THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL TO FUND THE RTB'S LOAN SUBSIDIES AND
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES FROM THE BANK'S LIQUIDATING ACCOUNT SHOULD BE
REJECTED
As it's done the past two years, the Subcommittee should once again
reject the Administration's proposal to fund the RTB's subsidy budget
authority and administrative expenses through the bank's liquidating
account balances. The Administration's proposal is inappropriate on
both legal and policy grounds. Statutorily, the Rural Electrification
Act provides for the RTB's use of facilities and services of employees
of the Department of Agriculture, without cost to the RTB, until such
time as the bank is privatized. The proposal also appears inconsistent
with the bifurcated structure of the RTB under the Federal Credit
Reform Act of 1990 which does not permit funds in the liquidating
account to finance new loans. From a public policy standpoint,
unobligated balances of the liquidating account have been targeted to
support the privatization of the RTB and use of these funds for other
purposes would only serve to dilute the value of the bank for all
stockholders. Finally, paying for the RTB's administrative expenses and
subsidy through the liquidating account offers no budgetary savings.
For these reasons, OPASTCO is opposed to the Administration's proposal
and urges the Subcommittee to continue to fund the RTB through the
general fund of the Treasury.
THE DISTANCE LEARNING AND TELEMEDICINE PROGRAM 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 and
telemedicine grant and loan program. This sensible investment allows
rural students to gain access to advanced classes which will help them
prepare for college and jobs of the future. Also, rural residents will
gain access to quality health care services without traveling great
distances to urban hospitals. Loans are made at the government's cost-
of-money, which should help to meet demand for the program in the most
cost effective way. In addition, OPASTCO supports the Administration's
inclusion of a pilot program to finance installation of broadband
transmission capacity and to provide local dial-up Internet service to
rural areas. In light of the Telecommunications Act's requirement that
schools, health care providers, and libraries have access to advanced
telecommunications services, and that rural areas have access to
advanced services that are comparable to those provided in urban areas,
sufficient targeted funding for these purposes is essential in fiscal
year 2001.
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 funds, 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 at a negligible cost to the taxpayer.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS OF
AMERICA
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), I present
recommendations on the fiscal year 2000 budget request submitted by the
Administration for the Food and Drug Administration, for inclusion in
the Subcommittee hearing record. PhRMA represents the country's leading
research-based pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, which are
devoted to investing more than $24 billion annually in discovering and
developing new medicines. PhRMA companies are leading the search for
new cures and treatments.
We recognize the difficulties confronting the Subcommittee in
meeting overall domestic spending caps affecting programs under your
jurisdiction, under the 1997 budget agreement. We also recognize that
pressures on appropriators to ensure an appropriate level of U.S.
defense spending is likely to be even greater in light of the recent
military activity with NATO. Decisions about which domestic programs to
maintain or increase thus will be even more difficult. We urge you,
however, to remember that many of the fruits of biomedical research are
brought to the bedsides of patients through the research and
development of new pharmaceuticals and through actions by the FDA to
bring those safe and effective medicines to patients as soon as
possible. To achieve this translation of medical research into better
health for our citizens requires a commitment to appropriate funding
for FDA.
That is why PhRMA fully supports the Administration's fiscal year
2000 request for budget authority specifically for direct federal
appropriations of $1.016 billion (excluding rental payments of $95
million) for FDA salaries and expenses. This account is the major and
essential component of FDA's resources, and the budget request
represents a $128 million increase over the appropriations enacted by
Congress for the current fiscal year under Public Law 105-227.
This level of funding is particularly important under the
``trigger'' provisions of the 1997 FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA) if the
pharmaceutical industry is to continue to be required to pay the user
fees that have enabled FDA to make new life-saving, cost effective
medicines available to patients much more quickly. The trigger
provisions require that general fund appropriations for all FDA
salaries and expenses must equal or exceed the fiscal year 1997
appropriation level (excluding user fees), as adjusted for inflation or
changes in discretionary budget authority for overall domestic
spending, beginning after fiscal year 1997.
As FDA Commissioner Jane E. Henney, M.D., noted in her recent
prepared testimony before your Subcommittee, FDA's dedication to the
health and safety of the American people is well established. It is
America's most important consumer protection agency. The FDA regulates
products that account for one-quarter of all consumer spending and that
comprise about $1 trillion in sales--including foods, medical and
radiological devices, medicines, animal drugs, and cosmetics. These are
goods that Americans expect to be safe and reliable.
However, Congress has imposed increasing responsibilities on FDA's
staff during the past decade--most recently, under FDAMA and the Animal
Drug Availability Act. For example, FDAMA requires that FDA inspect
establishments that make drugs and devices every two years. But between
1990 and 1998, the number of firms subject to inspections reportedly
rose from 89,000 to 114,000--a 28 percent increase.
In addition, the agency has had to respond quickly to an increasing
variety of new public health issues, such as ensuring the safety of
food and the nation's blood supply. For these reasons, it is of
critical importance that FDA be able to retain and recruit highly
qualified staff.
The research-based pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are
particularly concerned that FDA be able to continue to meet highly
important performance goals, mutually agreed upon in an historic
compact between FDA, Congress and industry. The agreement was first
reached in 1992 in the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) and was
confirmed in 1997 under FDAMA as PDUFA II. The total FDA ``program''
request for salaries and expenses in fiscal year 2000 includes
authorized appropriations of over $145 million for PDUFA II user fees--
an increase of some $13 million over the current fiscal year, to add
staff to handle vitally important drug reviews. During fiscal year
1998-2002, pharmaceutical companies will pay over $550 million in user
fees under FDAMA, so FDA can continue to reduce both review and overall
drug development times. As FDA Commissioner Henney has testified:
``PDUFA is among the most successful agency programs in history.
Within its first five years of implementation, the increased resources
provided by PDUFA to hire additional review staff has resulted in
cutting the average review times for new drugs, without compromising
the high standards that FDA has traditionally applied in weighing the
risks and benefits of new drugs and thereby in determining their safety
and effectiveness.''
Under PDUFA, the pharmaceutical industry and FDA are continuing to
work to serve a common client--the patient. The industry is working to
develop new and better drugs, FDA is striving to improve the drug
development and review process.
The critical importance of this partnership, in cooperation with
Congress, in delivering new medicines to patients as soon as possible
cannot be overemphasized. The 30 new drugs and 9 new biologics approved
by FDA in 1998 are to treat diseases that affect 180 million patients
and that cost more than $400 billion a year. New treatments include
medicines for patients suffering from AIDS, cancer, including breast
cancer, cardiovascular disease, Crohn's disease, tuberculosis,
rheumatoid arthritis, depression, Parkinson's disease, erectile
dysfunction, and the first vaccines to prevent Lyme disease and
retrovirus infection.
The prescription drug user fee program--which must be sharply
distinguished from proposals for general purpose user fees--is based on
three key principles:
--User fees must supplement FDA appropriations, not substitute for
them.
--User fees must be targeted to the review and approval of innovative
prescription medicines and their supplemental indications, and
are not to be used for general agency activities.
--User fees must be applied to meet specific performance goals,
agreed upon by FDA, to ensure the timely review and approval of
new drugs.
Before user fees, FDA review times averaged about 30 months. But
the 30 drugs approved in 1998 were reviewed in an average of 11.7
months slightly better than the 12-month goal specified in PDUFA II.
FDA also exceeded the fiscal year 1998 goal to review 90 percent of all
standard new drug and biologic applications within 12 months, by
completing 100 percent of the reviews within this timeframe.
The prescription drug user fees collected in fiscal year 2000 will
enable FDA to continue to meet its PDUFA II performance goals,
including:
--Review and act upon 90 percent of standard original NDA and PLA/BLA
submissions filed during fiscal year 2000 within 12 months of
receipt, and review and act on 50 percent within 10 months of
receipt.
--Review and act on 90 percent of priority original drug NDA and
biotechnology BLA submissions filed during fiscal year 2000
within six months of receipt.
--Review and act on 90 percent of standard drug efficacy supplements
filed during fiscal year 2000 within 12 months of receipt, and
review and act on 50 percent within 10 months of receipt.
--Review and act on 90 percent of priority drug efficacy supplements
filed during fiscal year 2000 within six months of receipt.
What this means is that FDA can continue to build on its record of
helping patients to obtain new medicines more than a year and a half
sooner than they did before user fees were enacted, while maintaining
its high standards of safety and effectiveness.
In addition, FDAMA contains important provisions that facilitate
access by patients to experimental drugs; give FDA more flexibility in
determining effectiveness; expand access by doctors to peer-reviewed
medical information; and encourage the development and testing of
medicines for children.
The U.S. system of new drug approvals is the most rigorous in the
world. On average, a company invests about $500 million and takes about
12-15 years to discover and develop a new drug. Only five in 5,000
compounds that enter preclinical testing make it to human testing. And
only one of these five is approved for use by patients.
R&D investment by research-based pharmaceutical firms continues to
break records. In 1999, pharmaceutical companies will invest $24
billion to discover and develop important new medicines. That figure
represents a 14.1 percent increase over last year's record setting R&D
spending. And no industry devotes a higher percentage of sales to R&D--
20.8 percent--than the research-based pharmaceutical industry.
However, the pharmaceutical industry's ever increasing R&D
investment, and FDA's determined efforts to improve the drug
development and review process, will be nullified if adequately
increased baseline appropriations for all of the agency's programs are
not provided.
For these reasons, PhRMA strongly urges that Congress appropriate
$1.016 billion (exclusive of rental payments) in fiscal year 2000 for
FDA salaries and expenses, as requested by the Administration, to
ensure that the agency can fulfill its vital responsibilities to
promote and protect the health and safety of the American people.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PREDATOR CONSERVATION ALLIANCE
I am writing you regarding appropriations of federal funds for the
U.S. Department of Agriculture ``Wildlife Services'' program (formerly
called, ``Animal Damage Control''). I am writing on behalf of Predator
Conservation Alliance, a non-profit conservation organization based in
Bozeman, Montana. We urge you and the other members of the Subcommittee
to cut $10 million from Wildlife Service's ``livestock protection''
program, which is almost entirely comprised of lethal predator control
in the western United States.
The federal Wildlife Services program has received much public
scrutiny and criticism for its livestock protection program, which
primarily involves killing coyotes, mountain lions and other predators.
The problem with the USDA's Wildlife Services program is that public
money is being spent to kill publicly owned wildlife, often on public
lands, for the benefit of a small percentage of private livestock
producers, who are neither required to change their management
practices to reduce livestock/predator conflicts nor directly pay for
this government ``service.'' Of the federal funds Congress allocates to
Wildlife Services, we find that the majority goes to the western
states, and the majority of that is spent on killing predators.
Our analysis of Wildlife Service's own data on its expenditures and
kill figures from fiscal year 1998 (the most recent data available to
the public) reveals the following problems:
--Despite a Clinton Administration policy that federal dollars should
fund no more than half of Wildlife Services' state office
expenditures, this is violated in 10 of the 17 western states;
--Western livestock producers, including individuals and
organizations, contributed less than 17 percent in direct
payments for livestock protection, and less than 29 percent
when indirect payments to county governments (typically due to
a ``head'' tax on livestock) are included;
--Livestock protection--which is almost exclusively lethal predator
control--accounts for three-fifths (61 percent) of Wildlife
Services' western state office expenditures, and about the same
percentageer the (63 percent) of its western state office
expenditures of federally appropriated funds;
--Over the past several years, Wildlife Services' western state
office expenditures to kill predators has exceeded reported
livestock losses to predators in those states by more than
three times!
Predator Project considers the Clinton Administration's recent
proposal to reduce Wildlife Services' operational budget for fiscal
year 2001 by $2.8 million a step in the right direction. However, we
urge Congress to further reduce Wildlife Services' budget by $10
million, by eliminating federal appropriations for the lethal predator
control work conducted through the Wildlife Services' ``livestock
protection'' program. For fiscal year 1998 (the most recent years for
which figures are available) Wildlife Services state offices spent
$9.58 million of federally appropriated funds on livestock protection.
We propose a $10 million cut in Wildlife Services' annual federal
appropriations to eliminate this aspect of the Wildlife Services
program. It is important to note that this total comprises the amount
spent by state offices only. Additional federally appropriated funds
are spent by the western and national Wildlife Services offices to
manage lethal predator control work; these funds will be unaffected by
this cut, and will therefore be available to provide technical
assistance to livestock producers, targeted lethal predator control,
and other Wildlife Services activities in the western 17 states.
Eastern Wildlife Services activities, which largely assist landowners
in managing their own wildlife problems, would be unaffected by this
reduction.
Predator Conservation Alliance is not alone in suggesting that
Congress end the wildlife control program. In January, an unusual
coalition of taxpayer and environmental groups released ``Green
Scissors 2000--Cutting Wasteful and Environmentally Harmful Spending''
(see attached). Wildlife Services was one of 77 programs which the
report recommended be cut, because the program is ``preying on
taxpayers.'' According to the report, not only is the program harmful
and costly, it does not even work: ``This program kills hundreds of
thousands of wild animals, but has not significantly reduced livestock
losses due to predators.'' In addition, Wildlife Services' livestock
protection activities benefit western ranchers to the exclusion of most
eastern ranchers. In fact, data recently obtained by the New Mexico-
based group New West Research reveal that only a small percentage of
western ranchers use Wildlife Services.
A final good reason for cutting the predator control component of
Wildlife Services' budget is that this program is outdated and no
longer supported by the majority of Americans. Our nation spends
millions of dollars each year to aid wildlife, and the killing of
wildlife by Wildlife Services directly contravenes these efforts.
We look forward to working with you to reduce the Federal
Government's operations and budget on this issue.
______
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 how important a balanced budget is to our
nation; however, we cannot sacrifice what has been accomplished. The
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. We believe strongly that the whole, national
program must be preserved.
We appreciate that the fiscal year 2001 President's budget
increases the NRCS overall funding; however, some programs are NOT
adequately funded, to the detriment of the agency and our citizens. The
increases are earmarked for grants, financial assistance and other non-
federal personnel items. The effect is a decrease of funds for direct
technical assistance.
We would like to address several of the programs affected by the
President's fiscal year 2001 budget proposal. Failure to fund these
initiatives would reduce assistance to those who need it.
Conservation Operations Budget.--This has been in steady decline in
real dollars over the past several years. This has apparently happened
partly as a result of dollars being diverted from Conservation
Operations to fund new programs, especially the increases in financial
assistance for conservation. We appreciate the increase for
Conservation Technical Assistance to $653,805,000; however, this falls
short of what is required. We request that $900 million be appropriated
for Conservation Technical Assistance.
Conservation Technical Assistance is the foundation of technical
support for conservation to the private users and owners of land in the
United States. The President's Clean Water Action Plan and the Unified
Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations will rely heavily on the
technical assistance provided through NRCS's Conservation Operations
Program. However, the Administration's proposal is to increase CCC
programs such as WRP, EQIP, CRP and the newly proposed CSP. The problem
is that personnel funded from these programs can only provide technical
assistance for those enrolled in these cost share programs leaving a
large percent of the agricultural community without technical
assistance. We recommend that funding for all technical assistance
should be placed in `Conservation Technical Assistance' and allow NRCS
to perform their mission of implementing these programs and providing
assistance to everyone, including those not fortunate enough to be
selected to participate in cost share programs..
With increases to EPA's manpower and decreases to NRCS you are
emphasizing enforcement and reducing assistance. This is the wrong way
to go. We encourage you to change this trend and allow our agricultural
community to have access to technology for better conservation than be
harassed by the constant threat of penalties for non-compliance.
Section 11 Caps.--Another factor which has seriously reduced the
ability of NRCS to meet the considerable demands for its technical
assistance is the limitation on funding which can be provided to NRCS
due to the Section 11 cap on transfer of funds from the Community
Credit Corporation (CCC). The CCC provides the funding for NRCS
technical assistance for several programs including EQIP and CRP.
Currently, this cap prevents NRCS from covering its staff costs for
these crucial programs. We support the lifting of the Section 11 cap
which was established before EQIP, CRP and WRP were created.
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (Public Laws 566 &
534).--More than 10,400 individual 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 planned life.
Today you hear alot about the watershed approach to resource
management. These programs offer a complete watershed management
approach and should continue for the following reasons:
--They protect people and communities from flooding.
--Their objectives and functions sustain our nation's natural
resources for future operations.
--They are only federally assisted and do not grow the federal
government.
--Initiatives and decisions are driven by the communities.
--They are cost shared.
--They follow NEPA guidelines and enhance the environment.
--They often address the need of low income and minority communities.
--The benefit to cost ratio of this program has been evaluated to be
2.2:1.
What other federal programs can claim such success?
There is no doubt of 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 will 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 wanted by our citizens.
We fully support H.R. 728, introduced in the 106th Congress by
Representative Frank Lucas (R-OK) and Representative Wes Watkins (R-OK)
as well as S. 1762 introduced by Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR); both
from the Red River Valley Region. This is a crucial bill to address a
serious problem.
In addition to the needs for reinvesting in existing infrastructure
there are many new projects which are awaiting funds to be built. The
present level, outlined in the budget, of $43.4 million is not
adequate. We strongly recommend that a funding level of $250 million be
dedicated to Flood Prevention; Public Law 534, $30 million, and
Watershed Operations Public Law 566, $220 million. This is more
realistic and compares to the programs appropriated in the years prior
to 1997. At the proposed funding level it would take over 30 years to
complete just the identified projects, with no attention given to
rehabilitation needs.
Emergency Watershed Protection Program.--This program comes under
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, but is a separate line item.
This has been a zero budget item; however, there will always be
emergency needs.
As our land use expands, to include sensitive environmental
ecosystems, major weather events will have an adverse impact requiring
NRCS to assist under this program; therefore it should be funded up
front. It is important for NRCS to be prepared for a rapid response.
With funds available they can react immediately to an emergency when it
occurs.
We request that a minimum of $20 million be appropriated for this
program in the fiscal year 2001 budget and that these funds are not
taken from elsewhere in the NRCS budget.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).--This program, administered by
Farm Services Agency, impacts NRCS the most. NRCS conducts and is
reimbursed for the technical assistance of this program.
We agree with the President's initiative to increase the enrollment
cap and request that, as a minimum, the CRP cap be increased to 45
million acres. This is an extremely beneficial program to our nation
and should not be allowed to expire. It provides a safety net to those
farmers trying to make a living on the marginal lands most suited for
this program.
Watershed Survey and Planning.--This was budgeted by the President
at $10.4 million and is an extremely important community program. NRCS
has used this to become a facilitator for the different community
interest groups, state and federal agencies.
As our municipalities expand the water resource issue tend to be
neglected until a serious problem occurs. Proper planning and
cooperative efforts, through this program, can prevent problems and
insure the water resource issues are met. We request that this program
be funded at a level of $25 million.
Forestry Incentives Program.--The President's budget has no funding
for this program. Congress transferred this program to NRCS from the
Farm Service Agency as a restructuring in the Federal Agricultural
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. Forestry on small, privately owned
lands is recognized as a farming activity. NRCS is the best agency to
administer this program which assists farmers in production
agriculture. It is more than just a timber production program. Forests
are the most effective land users as they relate to water quality, non
point source pollution, air quality, greenhouse gas reduction and
wildlife habitat.
We request Congress fund the Forestry Incentives Program at a level
of $6.5 million for fiscal year 2001.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).--Requests for
assistance through the EQIP program have been overwhelming. The
resulting requests far exceed the available funds and is an additional
workload on NRCS's delivery system. Additionally, adequate funding for
technical assistance must be provided to implement the program at a
minimum of 19 percent of the total program.
The $325 million proposed by the President for the EQIP program is
an adequate budget for fiscal year 2001; and the technical assistance
for this program budgeted at $61.750 million meets the 19 percent
level.
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP).--This is a very popular and
important program. It serves as a safety net to those farmers trying to
make a living on these marginal lands. It also addresses conservation
needs from water quality to global warming.
We agree with the President's request to raise the cap 560,000
acres over two years. We strongly recommend that this program be
supported at this level. This will allow the program to continue until
fiscal year 2002 when a reauthorization for the program can be made.
Red Bayou Irrigation ``Demonstration Project''.--Recent findings in
the Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) have concluded that irritated
agriculture is moving from western states to the east. A prime example
of this is the interest to irrigate along the Red River in Arkansas and
Louisiana. The drought conditions being experienced has accelerated the
efforts of different regions to form irrigation districts and start the
process to install systems. The farmers along Red Bayou, Caddo Parish,
Louisiana, have been very aggressive in their attempts to become
operational. We request that this project be `earmarked' as a
demonstration project to be used as a model throughout the Red River
Valley. NRCS was requested to determine the cost for this irrigation
system and we request maximum federal participation for funding of this
endeavor.
Over 70 percent of our land is in private ownership. This is
important to understanding the need for NRCS programs and technical
assistance. Their presence is vital to ensuring sound technical
standards are met in our conservation programs. These programs not only
address agricultural production, but sound natural resource management.
Without these programs and NRCS properly staffed to implement them many
owners of our private lands will not apply conservation measures needed
to sustain our natural resources for future generations.
The administration has proposed `new' Clean Water Initiative, but
why do they ignore the agency that has a proven record for implementing
conservation watershed programs? Congress must decide: will NRCS
continue to provide the leadership within the communities to build upon
the partnerships already established? The President's proposal does not
provide for that leadership and so it is up to Congress to insure NRCS
is properly funded and staffed to provide the needed help to our
taxpayers for conservation programs. This can be accomplished simply by
Funding Conservation Technical Assistance at $900 million and
eliminating the Section 11 Caps.
All these programs apply to the citizens in the Red River Valley
and we are concerned for the future. The RRVA is dedicated to work
toward the programs which will benefit our citizens and provide for
high quality of life standards. We therefore request that you
appropriate the required funding levels within the 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, subgrant or contract during the current
fiscal year or either of the two previous fiscal years.
______
REGIONAL AQUACULTURE CENTERS
PREPARED STATEMENT OF LESTER W. MYERS, SOUTHERN REGIONAL AQUACULTURE
CENTER
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony in support of the USDA-CSREES Regional
Aquaculture Centers. My name is Lester Myers. I own and operate a
catfish farm near Inverness, Mississippi, and am President and General
Manager of Delta Western, Inc., Indianola, Mississippi, the largest
catfish feed mill in the United States.
Over the last 20 years, aquaculture has become an important part of
United States agriculture. Production of channel catfish, the largest
sector of domestic aquaculture, has increased more than 30 percent in
the last 10 years--a growth rate matched by very few industries. Farm-
raised channel catfish now makes up a remarkably large proportion of
domestic seafood consumption and, on a value basis, catfish ranks
fourth in the United States, behind only shrimp, salmon, and crabs.
Further, a significant portion of the salmon consumed by Americans also
derives from aquaculture.
As the catch from wild fisheries continues to decline, with no end
in sight, the shortfall in seafood production must be met by increased
aquaculture production. However, continued expansion and profitability
of the aquaculture industry will depend on development of new
technology to reduce production costs and make production more
competitive in the global market. For the past several years, I have
been actively involved with the Southern Regional Aquaculture Center as
Chairman of the Industry Advisory Council, and I feel that the Regional
Aquaculture Center program is essential to help meet the need for
technology development. Already, results from the Regional Center
projects are having a significant impact on domestic aquaculture. I
would like to illustrate that point with the results of one project
that I am very familiar with through my role as General Manager of a
catfish feed mill.
Feeds represent about half the cost of raising fish in aquaculture,
so advances in feed formulation and feeding practices can have a great
impact on profitability. The recently completed project ``Improving
Production Efficiency of Warmwater Aquaculture Species through
Nutrition'' was one of the most successful projects developed through
the Southern Regional Aquaculture Center. Scientists from nine states--
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas--cooperated on the project. These
researchers, worked collaboratively to identify the most cost-effective
levels of vitamin and protein supplementation in feeds. Their work
resulted in improved feed formulations and feeding practices that have
saved the catfish, baitfish, and striped bass industries millions of
dollars a year. For example, in the catfish industry alone, feed costs
have been reduced $2-$4 a ton as a direct result of work on this
project. Assuming overall feed use of 600,000 tons per year in the
catfish industry, cost savings average $1.8 million annually--over
three times the amount spent on this project over its 3-year duration.
The project mentioned above is just one of many projects supported
through the Regional Center program that return economic benefits many
times the amount invested. This funding efficiency is the result of the
decentralized structure of the Regional Centers and the unique
cooperative process used to develop research projects.
In summary, representatives of the U.S. aquaculture industry are
convinced that the Regional Aquaculture Center programs are highly
valuable and productive. Additional new research findings will help
insure future success for aquaculture production in the United States.
The authorized level of funding for the five Regional Aquaculture
Centers is $7.5 million annually. Despite an outstanding performance
record and an organizational structure that has become a model for
collaborative research in agriculture, funding for the Regional Center
program has remained level at half the authorized level of funding, or
$4.0 million per year ($800,000 for each of the five Regions). This has
resulted in a steady erosion of actual operating funds, at the very
time when industry expansion calls for greater investment in research
and development. I respectfully request that you recommend the full
authorized level of $7.5 million for the existing five Centers to
support these extraordinarily important and effective programs.
On behalf of the U.S. aquaculture industry, I thank you for the
opportunity to present testimony in support of the Regional Aquaculture
Centers, and express my sincere appreciation for the support you have
provided in previous years. Again, I would like to emphasize that
significant benefits have already been provided from work conducted by
these Centers and additional funding is urgently needed by our
industry.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RAMSEY REIMERS, TROPICAL AND SUBTROPICAL REGIONAL
AQUACULTURE CENTER
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for
allowing me the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the
Regional Aquaculture Centers and the Center for Tropical and
Subtropical Aquaculture.
Robert Reimers Enterprises, Inc. has been involved in various
aquaculture projects for the last 15 years. Until two years ago, we
were the only private sector company involved in aquaculture in the
Republic of the Marshall Islands.
To date, we have experimented with a wide range of aquaculture
products including Corals, Giant Clams, Sponges, Sea Cucumbers, Trochus
Shell, Moi (Threadfin Shad), Shrimp and Black Pearl Oysters. We have
invested over $1,000,000 in these ventures and our aquaculture facility
is the largest of its kind in Micronesia.
The investments we have made to date are now experiencing a
financial return. Our Giant Clam Farm is now cash flow positive and the
Black Pearl Oyster project shows tremendous potential. These projects
represent two of the very few export products that our country
produces, bringing in foreign exchange dollars and providing employment
for our local residents.
We can say, unequivocally, that a large portion of our success to
date is due to our relationship with the Center for Tropical and
Subtropical Aquaculture (CTSA) and their direct involvement in our
programs.
CTSA provides a critical link between the scientific community and
farm operators through the Aquaculture Extension/Development project
which operates in our region. Intensive extension services were
provided to us in Giant Clam, Coral, Moi and Black Pearl Oyster
culture. Without the hands on demonstrations and the frequent research
bulletins provided, we would not have had the ability or courage to
enter these industries. Just as important is the constant encouragement
and moral support that we receive from all levels of CTSA personnel.
For companies pioneering aquaculture ventures in third world countries
such as ours, this level of support was absolutely essential.
In addition to the Extension/Development services, CTSA provides an
opportunity to directly learn from others in our industry. The annual
Industry Advisory Council meeting is one example. For those living in
the more remote locations of the Pacific, this meeting provides an
especially valued opportunity to meet with other aquaculture
professionals, to discuss problems related to our regional industry
development, to hear of new products and techniques, and to make
synergistic business contacts.
CTSA works hard at its mission to develop the aquaculture industry
and potential in its region. The management of CTSA makes a concerted
effort to listen to industry and respond to industry issues. This is
most refreshing coming from what many may view as an obscure research
facility. CTSA conducts the research that we, the industry and
investors, want to have done. CTSA research helps streamline our
processes and will ensure the economic success and continued growth of
our projects for as long as it is in existence.
It is our hope that with this testimony, your esteemed offices will
consider continued and expanded support for this valuable agency, the
Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARTER NEWELL, NORTHEASTERN REGIONAL AQUACULTURE
CENTER
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: I am Carter Newell of
Great Eastern Mussel Farms and Pemaquid Oyster Company, two shellfish
aquaculture companies located in mid-coast Maine. I am the immediate
past Board Chair of the Maine Aquaculture Innovation Center, and I also
sit on a marine advisory panel for the newly-formed Maine Technology
Institute. I have been active in commercial aquaculture in my state for
twenty-five years.
Although most aquaculture in Maine is conducted in the ocean, our
finfish and shellfish growers have much in common with land-based
farmers, especially those who rear livestock. We have many similar
problems and concerns. It is understandable therefore that we often
look to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for
assistance. In Maine we believe that USDA, with its research,
extension, and commercialization experience has much to offer our
growing aquaculture industry.
We connect with USDA through the Northeastern Regional Aquaculture
Center (NRAC) which has its office in Massachusetts near New Bedford.
Each of the twelve northeastern-most states and the District of
Columbia are represented on the NRAC Board of Directors. Through their
NRAC affiliation, land grant universities and state trade associations
are able to keep up to date with USDA's activities relating to
aquaculture industry development.
Recently, the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), has taken an
increased interest in aquaculture, particularly marine culture. The
National Sea Grant College Program, a DOC agency has been involved in
NRAC from the beginning. Therefore it can be said that NRAC provides a
bridge between Federal agencies, as well as a bridge between the
Federal Government and aquaculture in the states.
The recently completed National Census of Aquaculture, based on
1998 data, shows that Maine overall has the fourth largest aquaculture
industry in the United States, behind Florida, Mississippi, and
Arkansas. However, when it comes to mariculture (ocean aquaculture)
Maine is the top producer in the United States. The value of Maine's
Atlantic salmon, oyster, and mussel harvests this year is expected to
exceed $67 million at the farm gate. This makes aquaculture an
important force for economic development in my state.
I am personally involved in an initiative designed to increase one
segment of aquaculture in Maine. Four years ago, as Chair of the Maine
Aquaculture Innovation Center, I established a ``Mussel Working Group''
tasked with the responsibility of investigating whether mussel
``suspension culture'' (from rafts or longlines) could work in Maine.
Public interest in this project has been encouraging. We now have over
80 people (many are capture fishermen) who are actively following the
progress of our investigations regarding the suspension culture of
mussels. Ten rafts of varying designs are now in place.
Suspension techniques, long utilized in European waters, and off
Prince Edward Island in Canada, seem to show promise. But we still face
a number of serious obstacles, and this is where an organization like
NRAC can play an important role. Let me give you an example.
We are learning that bird predation--mostly from eider ducks,
threatens the success of mussel rafts. We need to comprehensively focus
on ways to keep waterfowl away from the rafts, through the use of
acoustical devices or protective netting. Now, Maine has sources to
which a commercial farm can go for sponsorship of aquacultural
research, but usually, state agencies require match funding. Here is
where the RACs can make a real difference.
In the past, NRAC has assisted industry by bringing people
together, sponsoring research on environmental, disease, and marketing
topics, and effectively communicating the outcome of research of
interest to industry. With additional annual appropriations from the
Congress, NRAC could do much more in the area of applied commercial
research. Support from USDA could be matched with support from state
sources, academia and industry. Working together, these partners could
concentrate their efforts on the obstacles that currently prevent
entrepreneurs from making major leaps forward.
You are all aware, I believe, that aquaculture does not fit neatly
into one department of the Federal government. At last count, some
fourteen Federal agencies are involved in one way or another with our
fledgling industry.
Imagine how this situation confounds the young businessperson
trying to establish an aquafarm. Right now, the Northeastern Regional
Aquaculture Center is the best place for an interested person to go and
obtain Federal information concerning fish farming. By linking with
NRAC, the prospective fish farmer can identify people who can provide
assistance and training, can obtain fact sheets and easy to read
reports on completed and ongoing research. The ``information clearing
house'' function alone should justify continued Congressional support
of the RACs.
As the industry becomes more sophisticated, its members will
realize that the RACs can play a greater role. We ask that your
subcommittee give the RACs the resources they need to realize their
full potential.
Thank you for your attention to these remarks.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MYRON KLOUBEC, MIDWEST REGIONAL AQUACULTURE
CENTER
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee for allowing
me the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the Regional
Aquaculture Center Program. Kloubec Fish Farms is one of the Midwest's
largest fish producing operations with hatchery, fingerling ponds, and
indoor food fish facilities. Originally conceived by my father as a
hobby in 1976, it was later developed by myself into a permanent
alternative agriculture business in 1981. The business has had
considerable success supplying a wide variety of fingerling stock into
numerous recreational areas, including regional farm ponds, state and
county parks, and private lakes. Since 1981 Kloubec Fish Farms has
evolved into a wholesale and retail distributor of quality fish for
sale nationwide, and has spread into international markets. My farm has
expanded from four ponds and three species in 1976, to over 50 ponds
and 14 species currently covering 50 acres. Consisting of spawning labs
and a hatchery, Kloubec Fish Farms has become Iowa's largest privately
owned and operated fish farm. The operation now has 2 employees. Given
the necessary financial and operational inducements I think that my
aquaculture operation is an example of what can be done in today's
agriculture.
Aquaculture is a young and developing industry, especially here in
the Midwest. As with any new agricultural enterprise, we have had to
produce new products that consumers wanted as well as obtain the
necessary financing to allow our operation to keep growing. At the same
time regulations associated with aquaculture have not always been that
conducive to the private sector. I personally see a bright future for
aquaculture in the U.S. as long the following occurs: (1) increasing
research and technology transfer activities in aquaculture, (2) reduce
the over-regulation of aquaculture (state and federal), and (3) provide
more access to financing for aquaculture ventures. One way in which
Congress can influence these factors is to fully fund the $7.5 million
authorization for the Regional Aquaculture Centers; Congress has never
fully funded the Centers. If the fully authorized amount is not
appropriated, then they should at least be funded at the level they
have received over the last few years which is $4.0 million. The
savings in increased taxes resulting from less imports and more
domestic production in aquaculture will help to produce a sound economy
for this county. Thank you.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
SUMMARY
The statement urges the Committee to support adequate funding for
the Public Law 566 program in the Administration's budget to provide $1
million for the Llagas Creek Project and $6 million for the Lower
Silver Creek Project.
BACKGROUND
The Public Law 566 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Program has provided funding for flood prevention projects that have
benefitted communities and agricultural interests throughout the United
States. Beginning in 1954, the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(District) has participated in the program with three projects in Santa
Clara County: Llagas Creek Project, Lower Silver Creek Project, and
Upper Penitencia Creek Project. The passage of the federal 1990 Farm
Bill, however, halted the Natural Resources Conservation Service
watershed plan for Upper Penitencia Creek. Despite the project's high
benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.7 to 1.0, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
would not approve the project under the Farm Bill because the
agricultural benefits are less than the prescribed 20 percent.
PROJECT SYNOPSIS
Public Law 566 projects in Santa Clara County have been
significantly delayed in recent years because of the program's limited
funding. This drawn-out schedule has caused a significant hardship for
the communities. For example, in Morgan Hill, where residents have been
waiting since 1954 for project completion, severe flood damages were
sustained in 1997 and 1998 from Llagas Creek.
Llagas Creek Project
The Llagas Creek Project is located in the southern Santa Clara
County and serves the communities of Gilroy, San Martin, and Morgan
Hill. Llagas Creek has flooded in 1937, 1955, 1958, 1962, 1963, 1969,
1982, 1986, 1996, 1997, and 1998. In the areas of Morgan Hill and San
Martin, where protection is proposed, flood damages of $150,000 were
sustained in 1997 and $200,000 in 1998. However, in both years, the
floods did not damage Gilroy, which was protected by the completed
portion of the Llagas Creek Project.
The proposed project will protect more than 1,100 homes, 500
commercial and industrial buildings, and 1,300 agricultural acres from
a 1 percent flood.
The Llagas Creek Project has not been funded for the last four
years by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The legal transfer
of construction authority and program funding from the U.S. Department
of Agriculture to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) was
completed under the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (Section
501).
Lower Silver Creek Project
The Lower Silver Creek Project is located in eastern Santa Clara
County, within the boundaries of the city of San Jose. The creek has
flooded in 1952, 1955, 1958, 1967, 1982, 1983, and 1986. The proposed
project on Lower Silver Creek will primarily protect a residential area
in eastern San Jose. Approximately 1,400 buildings are located in this
flood prone area. Due to curtailment of Public Law 566 federal funding,
the District is working with the Natural Resources Conservation Service
on a reimbursement agreement to design and build the Lower Silver Creek
Project.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FUNDING
The level of Natural Resources Conservation Service funding for the
fiscal year 2000 Public Law 566 program did not provide funds for the
Lower Silver Creek Project. $250,000 was appropriated for Llagas Creek
in the Corps budget.
FISCAL YEAR 2001 FUNDING RECOMMENDATION
Based on the need to provide critical flood protection for Santa
Clara County, it is requested that the Congressional Committee support
adequate funding for the Public Law 566 program in the Administration's
fiscal year 2001 budget to provide $1 million for the Llagas Creek
Project and $6 million for the Lower Silver Creek Project.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
The Seminole Tribe of Florida is pleased to submit this statement
regarding the fiscal year 2001 budget for the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) in the Department of Agriculture. The Tribe
asks that Congress provide $903.8 million for NRCS's Conservation
Operations-01 Partnership; this request exceeds the administration's
budget request for fiscal Year 2001 by $250 million. The Seminole
Tribe's agricultural enterprises and environmental programs benefit
from the technical assistance the NRCS provides through its
Conservation Operations Partnership. Recently, the Tribe has been
working closely with the Florida State Conservationists on a number of
1996 Farm Bill programs and anticipates increased technical assistance
needs in the coming fiscal year.
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. Our 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, our 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, we learned how to use
the natural system for support without harm to the environment that
sustained us. For example, our 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, we looked to our
Tribal elders for guidance. Our elders taught us to look to the land,
for when the land was ill, the Tribe would soon be ill as well. When we
looked at the land, we saw the Everglades in decline and recognized
that we had to help mitigate the impacts of man on this natural system.
At the same time, we acknowledged that this land must sustain our
people, and thereby our culture. The clear message we heard from our
elders and the land was that we must design a way of life to preserve
the land and the Tribe. Tribal members must be able to work and sustain
themselves. We need to protect the land and the animals, but we must
also protect our Tribal farmers and ranchers.
Recognizing the needs of our land and our people, the Tribe, along
with our 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 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 to
allow the Tribe to sustain ourselves while reducing impacts on the
Everglades. The Seminole Tribe is committed to improving the water
quality and flows on the Big Cypress Reservation. We have already
committed significant resources to the design of this project and to
our water quality data collection and monitoring system. We are willing
to continue our efforts and to commit more resources, for our cultural
survival is at stake.
In addition to addressing the ecosystem concerns related to the Big
Cypress Reservation, the Tribe has been actively involved in the
development of the ecosystem-wide restoration plan. The Tribe, as an
active member of both the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South
Florida and the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force and
Working Group, has worked cooperatively with our neighbors to design a
sustainable future for all of South Florida.
SEMINOLE TRIBE EVERGLADES RESTORATION INITIATIVE
The Tribe has developed a conceptual water conservation plan that
will enable us to meet new water quality standards essential to the
cleanup of our part of the South Florida ecosystem and to plan for the
storage and conveyance of our water rights. We have also designed, with
the assistance of the NRCS, the Tribe's best management practices
program. We continue to use available funds to further the design and
planning work necessary to implement our Everglades Restoration
Initiative.
The Tribe's Everglades Restoration Initiative is designed to
mitigate the degradation the Everglades has suffered through decades of
flood control projects and urban and agricultural use and ultimately to
restore the nation's largest wetlands to a healthy state. Our
Everglades Restoration Initiative will enable the Tribe:
--to collect and monitor data to establish a baseline and to evaluate
performance of the overall system design;
--to design and construct surface water management systems to remove
phosphorus, convey and store irrigation water, improve flood
control, and rehydrate the Big Cypress National Preserve;
--to commit to the long-term operation and maintenance of new water
management systems; and
--to design and implement comprehensive best management practices for
the Big Cypress Reservation.
This project will enable the Tribe to meet proposed numeric target
for low phosphorus concentrations that is being used for design
purposes by state and federal authorities. It will also provide an
important public benefit: a new system to convey excess water from the
western basins to the Big Cypress National Preserve, where water is
vitally needed for rehydration and restoration of lands within the
Preserve.
CONCLUSION
Everglades restoration is a well-recognized national priority.
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. The Tribe also anticipates additional
programmatic assistance through the implementation of a portion of the
Tribe's water conservation plan through the small watershed program as
authorized through Public Law 83-566. None of the joint objectives of
the Tribe and the NRCS can be accomplished, however, without sufficient
funding of the Florida Conservationist's technical assistance budget.
The Seminole Tribe is ready, willing, and able to begin work
immediately. Doing so will require substantial commitments from the
Tribe, including the dedication of over 9,000 acres of land for water
management improvements. However, if the Tribe is to move forward with
its contribution to the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, a
substantially higher level of federal financial assistance will be
needed as well.
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 OF AMERICAN FORESTERS
Mr. Chairman, I am William H. Banzhaf. I am the Executive Vice-
President of the Society of American Foresters (SAF). The more than
17,500 members of the Society constitute the scientific and educational
association representing the profession of forestry in the United
States. SAF's primary objective is to advance the science, technology,
education, and practice of professional forestry for the benefit of
society. We are ethically bound to advocate and practice land
management consistent with ecologically sound principles.
I am especially pleased to be here today to comment on the fiscal
year 2001 budget for the Department of Interior and Related Agencies. I
wish to thank the subcommittee for its continued support of
professional forestry, and its continued support of our priorities. I
thank the Chair for the opportunity to testify on these important
issues.
The public policy activities of SAF are grounded in scientific
knowledge and professional judgment. From this perspective we review
proposed budgets for forestry and related natural resource programs to
determine their adequacy to meet stated objectives and public needs.
THE USDA FOREST SERVICE
Forest Inventory and Analysis
Of all Forest Service programs, the Forest Inventory and Analysis
(FIA) is our top funding priority for fiscal year 2001. The Agriculture
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 demonstrated how
strongly Congress supports an improved FIA program. The Forest Service
has developed a strategic plan for the program, a plan that we believe
strongly responds to Congress' intent, and the recommendations of a
blue ribbon panel designed specifically to evaluate the progress of the
program and make recommendations for its improvement. The plan calls
for an $8 million increase per year through 2003 to fully implement the
program. Full implementation ought to be our goal.
We are extremely concerned that the Administration does not truly
support this important program. The President's budget proposal
provides no new money for the FIA program. We do believe the Agency
itself is committed to the program. This is evidenced by a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) between the National Association of State
Foresters and Chief Dombeck on February 15, 2000. This MOU commits the
Forest Service to fully implementing the strategic plan, which would
elevate the role of FIA within the Forest Service and hopefully,
increase future funding requests from the Administration. The MOU also
encourages states to make financial and other contributions toward
fully implementing the FIA program, which is absolutely necessary to
make it a success.
In the past, we have discussed a problem with internal funding
within the Forest Service. Essentially the National Forest System (NFS)
was not making an appropriate contribution to the FIA program that
collects inventory data on NFS lands. Chief Dombeck has shown real
leadership in improving this problem, and we are pleased that the
Forest Service will allocate funding to assure that all NFS lands are
inventoried as outlined in the FIA Strategic Plan.
The Forest Inventory and Analysis program provides accurate,
comparable data across all forestlands in the United States. Local
governments, journalists, environmental groups and private citizens, in
addition to forestry professionals in every employer category, need and
use this information. Understanding the condition of the nation's
forests is critical for appropriate planning and sustainable
management. We believe the subcommittee has recognized the importance
of this program in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.
Moving toward the new annualized inventories and increasing the
range of data collected will create new demand for this important
program. In order to support these endeavors, we encourage the
subcommittee to continue to support increased funding for this critical
program.
Cooperative Fire Protection Programs
We also strongly support funding for the Cooperative Fire
Protection programs. Uncontrolled wildland fires pose a tremendous
threat to the lives, property, and natural resources across the
country. Conditions are particularly hazardous in the wildland-urban
interface, a zone where human development intermingles with forests and
grasslands. In order to secure firefighter safety, minimize property
damage, and resource loss, cooperative approaches must be effective.
Firefighters must receive the training, information, and equipment
necessary to safely carry out their responsibilities.
Wildfire does not respect political boundaries. Effective wildfire
response requires a coordinated interagency effort. Frequently, federal
land managers call upon state and volunteer firefighters nationwide to
assist in coping with wildland fires, and to provide assistance to
carry out prescribed burns and fuel reduction programs.
There are two components of the Cooperative Fire Protection
programs: the State Fire Assistance program and the Volunteer Fire
Assistance program. The State Fire Assistance program provides state
forestry agencies with assistance in delivering a coordinated wildfire
response and in complying with national safety and training standards
allowing state and local crews to be deployed to federal fires and
other emergency or disaster situations. The program also assists states
with hazard assessments, fuel treatment projects, and public education
efforts.
State forestry agencies administer the Volunteer Fire Assistance
program through grants and other assistance to local fire departments
for training and equipment. The program's main focus is on rural and
urban interface communities that need assistance in meeting both
existing and expanded fire suppression responsibilities. The Volunteer
Fire Assistance program is another strong cost share program that helps
rural firefighters secure the latest training and equipment. Rural
communities fight forest fires, and without this program they would not
have the appropriate resources. This funding is critical because these
communities have seen a significant decline in receipts from national
forest and BLM revenue sharing programs. Resources are scarce in rural
America.
Cooperative Fire Protection programs are critical to both forest
health and the safety of our communities. We ask the subcommittee to
consider strong funding levels for these programs.
Addressing the Ecological Infrastructure Backlog
Much has been said about the backlog issues associated with the
national forests. Whether it is forest health, deteriorating forest
roads, endangered species, salmon habitat, recreation facilities,
hazardous fuels, or any number of other issues, it is clear that the
national forests desperately need attention. The Forest Service must
address its ecological infrastructure backlog. Ecological
infrastructures are those mechanisms that allow forest and other
natural systems to function properly. Any one component of a system
that is not functioning properly has the potential to impact other
parts of the system. This is not always the case, but clearly there are
examples in the national forests. Humans manipulate these processes
sometimes acting as an equalizer, sometimes doing more damage. The key
is allowing professional natural resource managers to put the
infrastructure back in place.
The Agency is attempting to deal with all the ecological
infrastructure needs. They have mapped areas of forest health risk
across the nation. They are addressing a very serious problem with the
National Forest System road network. They are addressing wildland/urban
interface issues. The most frustrating thing about all of these efforts
is the estimated costs associated with addressing them. The Forest
Service believes it will cost $8.6 billion to address the road backlog
it faces. The Congressional Research Service believes it will cost $3.9
billion to completely address the hazardous fuels buildup on the
National Forest System. These figures do not include other ecological
infrastructure issues that plague the National Forest System, such as
the costs associated with restoring salmon habitat, enhancement of
endangered species habitat, or a host of other problems. While these
figures are astronomical and beyond what Congress can realistically
fund, the Forest Service will receive money to address some of these
problems and one problem should not be favored over the other by the
Congress or the Administration. Forest Service managers on the ground
know where critical problems exists, they know how to address them, and
they have the wherewithal to get the job done. The Forest Service
should continue to develop plans and tools like the forest health risk
maps, which Congress can study and consider. We believe this helps
Congress, in their oversight role, fund backlogged work with confidence
that the work will be completed. The Forest Service needs a reliable
multi-year source of funding to address these issues, and the ability
to set the priorities at the local level. The Agency also needs
adequate and appropriate staff to carry out these activities.
We appreciate the efforts the Forest Service has made to respond to
repeated criticisms regarding accountability. We note that one of their
responses has been to collapse numerous line items in the National
Forests System Account to three. We do not support this initiative.
Collapsing the line items reduces one's ability to understand where the
Forest Service priorities lie. We do support the Forest Service's
efforts to detail performance measures, and we believe this process
will improve over time.
America's Forested Landscape
It is important that the Forest Service and the federal government
strengthen their commitment to state and local forestry agencies and
the 10 million nonindustrial private forestland owners of this nation.
The Forest Service has a unique partnership with the state forestry
organizations, a partnership that has the opportunity to improve the
health of our nation's forests through technical assistance, inventory
and monitoring, and protection from fires, insects, and disease on the
543 million acres of non-federal forests. Due to limited funding, the
State and Private Forestry programs have yet to fully meet their
potential, however, SAF supports these programs and hopes Congress will
as well.
We are concerned about the status of private forestland in this
nation. State, county, private, and industrial lands are increasingly
producing forest-related goods and services. The most dramatic change
on these lands is the shift in production of timber. Approximately 94
percent of all timber produced in the U.S. is produced on non-federal
lands. The volume of timber from national forests has decreased
dramatically, from 12.7 billion board feet (bbf) to 3.4 bbf, over the
past 12 years. Such reductions shift the burden of producing wood fiber
to state and private lands in order to meet the nation's increasing
demand for forest products. The federal government has some
responsibility to protect and enhance the sustainable flow of forest
products from state and private lands precisely because of the
substantial decrease in production on Forest Service lands. We are
seeing examples of increasing urban sprawl, forest fragmentation, and
more importantly large managed private forests sold as smaller parcels
to individual owners reducing overall land management opportunities. As
a nation we have decided that forests, both public and private, are
important for economic, environmental, human health, and spiritual
reasons. We express the importance and value of our forest resources
through a variety of mechanisms, including legislation. Many federal
statutes, including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act,
the Clean Air Act and others, have a regulatory impact on the
management of private lands. Other statutes, the Cooperative Forestry
Assistance Act of 1978, and the 1990 Farm Bill Forestry Title, for
example, take a cooperative, incentive based approach to non-federal
forests. These acts recognize the need for state, federal, and local
cooperation to achieve resource benefits across the landscape, and they
use a non-regulatory, incentive-based approach to achieve them. This
cooperative approach is vital on issues that cross ownership
boundaries, such as watersheds, forest insects and disease, and
particularly wildfire.
Adequate funding is essential if the program is to reach non-
industrial private landowners, only about 10 percent of whom have
written management plans for their land. Even worse, the majority of
timber sales on private lands go forward without the benefit of
professional forestry advice. While this may seem like merely a problem
of poor business practices, we in the forestry profession view it as a
serious threat to the long-term sustainability of the nation's forest
resources. Private land has public value. That is why we actively
support programs that increase the amount of forestry advice available
to non-industrial private forest landowners. In addition to private
sector consulting and industry efforts, extension programs, and other
mechanisms, we believe the State and Private forestry programs can help
both public and private sector foresters meet these challenges.
Maintaining and Enhancing Forest and Rangeland Research
There has been a general clamor for increased funding for forestry
research since the publication of the 1990 RPA program report, which
identified improving scientific knowledge about natural resources as a
high priority. The National Research Council's (NRC) 1990 report,
Forestry Research: A Mandatefor Change, found the knowledge required
for sound forest management policies inadequate. The 1997 NRC report
entitled Forested Landscapes in Perspective, which focused on the needs
of non-industrial private landowners, continued to report that
information needs were not being met. There are ongoing efforts
studying the question of the adequacy of forestry research, and they
all come to the same conclusion: current forestry research efforts are
inadequate.
SAF is concerned about the relatively stagnant Forest Service
research budget of the last few years, but have been encouraged by
recent modest increases, and we thank the Committee for that support.
These appropriations, however, represent a significant decline in
constant dollars and have lead to the unavoidable loss of not only
administrators but scientists with significant expertise in highly
specialized areas.
Natural resource management issues are more complex today than they
ever have been in the past. To find solutions we need interdisciplinary
research in the biological, physical, and social sciences. The Agency
has done a good job, and could do more, to reduce overhead and put more
research dollars to work in direct research projects. But if we
continue to lose scientists and research dollars, we believe complex
issues are unlikely to be resolved, and the future of the Forest
Service research program will be in jeopardy. With recognition of this
disturbing trend, we encourage the Committee to increase the
appropriation for Forest Service Research above the President's
request. We have presented separate testimony on this issue, and we
thank the Committee for its continued interest in the need for forestry
research.
The Bureau of Land Management
The fiscal year 1998 Interior and Related Agency Appropriation Act
(Public Law 105-83) included language that expanded the use of the
Bureau of Land Management's Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund
(FEHRF), allowing the BLM to expand silvicultural treatments to improve
forest ecosystem health. Funds from this account are used to support
Public Domain forest management efforts, including reforestation,
thinning, salvage timber sales and other fuel reduction activities
including prescribed fire. The expanded authority for the FEHRF,
combined with increased funding for prescribed burning, will provide
BLM managers with the tools to improve forest and wildlife habitat on
BLM lands. And again, we thank the Committee for developing this change
in authority.
In spite of the funding available under the FEHRF to implement
ecosystem health projects, the BLM lacks the on-the-ground personnel,
within the Public Domain, necessary to plan and implement these
important activities. Since 1981, the BLM Forestry Management program
has experienced an inflation-adjusted 65 percent budget decrease,
whereas the entire Management of Lands and Resources budget has
experienced only a 10 percent decrease over the same time period. With
this in mind, we do support the modest increase of about $2.8 million
requested in the President's budget to complete on-the-ground forest
management projects. However, we firmly believe the BLM needs to
increase its forest management expertise in order to take full
advantage of the FEHRF and effectively shift to a focus on forest
restoration. Therefore, we support an increase in funding and
congressional direction for additional forestry personnel to plan and
administer forest health improvement activities under the BLM Forestry
Management program.
In conclusion, we strongly support Forest Service research, in
particular Forest Inventory and Analysis, and the Cooperative Fire
Protection programs, and state and private programs. We also support
the BLM's Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund and the effort to
restore the Public Domain forests. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the
opportunity to share our views with you and the subcommittee today.
ABOUT THE SOCIETY
The Society of American Foresters, with about 18,000 members, is
the national organization that represents all segments of the forestry
profession in the United States. It includes public and private
practitioners, researchers, administrators, educators, and forestry
students. The Society was established in 1900 by Gifford Pinchot and
six other pioneer foresters.
The mission of the Society of American Foresters is to advance the
science, education, technology, and practice of forestry; to enhance
the competency of its members; to establish professional excellence;
and to use the knowledge, skills, and conservation ethic of the
profession to ensure the continued health and use of forest ecosystems
and the present and future availability of forest resources to benefit
society.
The Society is the accreditation authority for professional
forestry education in the United States. The Society publishes the
Journal of Forestry; the quarterlies, Forest Science, Southern Journal
of Applied Forestry, Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, and Western
Journal of Applied Forestry; The Forestry Source; and the annual
Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters national convention.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SOCIETY FOR ANIMAL PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION
We greatly appreciate the support this Subcommittee has provided to
these programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and respectfully
request the following modest appropriations and oversight to ensure
that the laws passed by Congress are being carried out effectively.
A $15.175 MILLION APPROPRIATION IS NEEDED FOR APHIS/ANIMAL CARE'S
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT
An unprecedented coalition of organizations has joined together
seeking adequate funds for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).
The Coalition includes national groups such as the American Veterinary
Medical Association, the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, the
National Association for Biomedical Research and the Society for Animal
Protective Legislation, as well as grassroots organizations from across
the country. This represents a unique meeting of the minds between the
regulated community and the animal welfare community, who recognize the
desperate need for increased funding for this vital program.
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).
Forty-five percent of the facilities that are inspected are found
to be noncompliant. Facilities with serious deficiencies require
reinspections to ensure that corrective action is taken. Our review of
inspection reports shows a widespread inability of inspectors to make
the needed reinspections; the only reason they are unable to reinspect
is 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 32.
This example illustrates the value of frequent, unannounced
inspections of licensees and registrants. Increasing the number of
inspections will significantly improve compliance with the law.
Limited resources could be better utilized if Congress prohibited
the supply of dogs and cats by Class B dealers altogether. It is not
feasible for AC to expend the tremendous effort necessary to track the
sources on each random source dog and cat. As a result, AC is unable to
provide an assurance that each dog and cat from these dealers is not a
lost or stolen pet. There is no need for continued reliance on Class B
dealers because there are other sources for the dogs and cats needed
for research purposes including breeders. Report language from the
Subcommittee could offer support for H.R. 453, the Pet Safety and
Protection Act, which would end the supply of dogs and cats to research
facilities by random source dealers. Adoption of this legislation would
reduce USDA's regulatory burden, while permitting experimentation to
continue unhindered. 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.
Increased funding will permit AC to hire and equip more inspectors,
whose numbers have declined from a high of 88 to a current low of only
64. AC will be able to increase 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. Increased 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.
A $1 MILLION LINE ITEM APPROPRIATION IS NEEDED FOR THE ANIMAL WELFARE
INFORMATION CENTER LOCATED AT THE NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL LIBRARY
The Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC) was established by the
1985 amendment to the Animal Welfare Act, the Improved Standards for
Laboratory Animals Act, to serve as a clearinghouse and educational
resource of information on alleviating or reducing pain and distress in
experimental animals (including anesthetic and analgesic procedures),
reducing the number of animals who must be used for research and
identifying alternatives to the use of animals for specific research
projects.
Animal Care is seeking to maximize compliance with the Animal
Welfare Act, and the AWIC is the single most important resource for
educating research facility personnel on their responsibilities under
this law. There are more than 1,200 registered research facilities
nationwide, and the services of the AWIC are available to all
individuals at these institutions.
The AWIC staff, four full-time professionals, one technician and
two part-time professionals, respond to requests for information on
topics covered by the Animal Welfare Act including alternatives to
painful procedures, unproved methodologies, training, environmental
enrichment for nonhuman primates, and checking for unintended
duplication. The staff conduct training, present at meetings, exhibit
at conferences, produce documents, maintain a website and work on
special projects.
The AWIC website (http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic) receives
approximately 30,000 hits per month. According to AltaVista, there are
links to the AWIC site by approximately 765 pages. Annually the AWIC
staff fills more than 18,000 requests for specific publications and has
provided reference services in response to more than 1,900 requests.
The AWIC has not received an increase in appropriations during its
14 years, restricting the services it is able to provide. Though a
number of documents are in the final stages of preparation, there are
insufficient funds to provide print and electronic versions of them
all. These documents include an updated listing of animal-related
audiovisuals in the National Agricultural Library collection, two
issues of the Animal Welfare Information Center Bulletin, a database on
swine (who are being used in increasing numbers) as an animal model, an
information resource on the use of fish, amphibia, reptiles,
cephalopods, and insects in research, and processing a series of data
sets on anesthetics, analgesics, and tranquilizers into searchable
files on the AWIC website.
Funds are urgently needed to permit the AWIC staff to develop a
training program to help Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees
best fulfill their responsibilities under the Animal Welfare Act. The
increased costs of personnel, publishing, journals and books, computer
hardware and software, travel and exhibiting have all increased
dramatically since 1986 when the AWIC was first funded.
$500 THOUSAND FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE HORSE PROTECTION ACT
It has been thirty years 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 method of reducing the showing of horses who
have been sored is to have Animal Care (AC) inspectors present at the
shows. AC has been restricted to attending less than 6 percent of horse
shows because of extreme shortage of funds. Unless sufficient funding
is provided to enable AC to attend more events, 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. In fiscal year 1997
(the most recent year for which such information is available), the
rate at which DQPs turned down horses for soring was 1.42 percent. The
turndown rate more than doubled to 3.57 percent when government
inspectors were present to oversee the activities of the DQPs.
An increase in appropriations to $500,000 would permit AC to attend
a greater percentage of horse shows, thereby ensuring significantly
stronger compliance with the Horse Protection Act.
CONGRESS NEEDS TO PROVIDE INCREASED OVERSIGHT OF WILDLIFE SERVICES
OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH
Mammals
Wildlife Services (WS) has been involved in an extremely effective
oral rabies vaccine program. Use of treated baits has been successful
in curbing the spread of rabies. Unfortunately, the Administration has
suggested a reduction in this funding. Resources should be maximized to
address the rabies threat before it spreads to additional states. We
encourage that full funding be restored for this vital effort.
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 begin a 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.
On December 11, 1997, the United States Government reached an
``Understanding'' with the European Union in which the U.S. agreed to
phase out use of ``conventional steel-jawed leghold restraining
traps.'' WS has the responsibility of complying with the U.S.
obligation by ending its use of these barbaric devices.
WS should begin by immediately prohibiting use of leghold traps for
3 species for which there is extensive documentation that effective,
publicly acceptable, less cruel alternatives exist. These species are
raccoon, beaver and opossum. While we believe that this policy should
extend to all species, there is no justification for refusing to
implement this modest step in alleviating unnecessary animal suffering
at once.
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.
Birds
WS is expected to approve the poisoning of two million blackbirds
with DRC 1339 which takes one to three days to kill the birds by uremic
poisoning. We urge this distinguished Subcommittee to eliminate funding
for this empty gesture to appease the growers of sunflower seeds which
the birds eat during their spring migration.
The poison is a cruel and basically ineffective means of attempting
to control blackbird numbers since there are over 35 million blackbirds
in this portion of the flyway! WS' specious claim that no other birds
are harmed by the poison is patently incredible. The American taxpayer
is certainly harmed by being forced to contribute to this cruel
boondoggle.
WS is developing a fertility control substance, which could be
genuinely effective in reducing blackbird numbers. We urge the
Subcommittee to encourage this sensible effort by WS and cut the
useless funding for painful poison application. We agree with the
National Audubon Society demand for an immediate end to the project.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
As you begin to formulate your appropriations and funding
priorities for fiscal year 2001, I respectfully urge you to consider
the following items for inclusion in the upcoming agriculture
appropriations bill. Each request is followed by a brief description of
the project. These projects and funding requests are of particular
importance to the State of Illinois and I hope you will be able to
include them in this legislation. In addition, I am grateful for all of
the assistance that you have been able to provide to the State of
Illinois--your efforts are greatly appreciated and provide many
benefits throughout the state.
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
Illinois River Basin Restoration Program, ``Illinois River 2020''--Farm
Bill Components
The Illinois River Basin Restoration Program is a comprehensive
proposal of authorizations and appropriations that will address the
serious threats to the Illinois River and its tributaries and implement
Illinois' goals for the restoration, enhancement, and conservation for
the Illinois River and its 55 county watershed. The Illinois River
Basin Restoration Program is a two-tiered approach to provide a
voluntary, incentives-based program that restores and protects the
Illinois river hydrology and water quality, addresses urban non-point
source issues, farmland protection and open space, land treatment for
stormwater, and best management practices for upland areas that drain
into the river and its tributaries.
The following natural resources and environment requests relate
directly to the Illinois River Preservation Initiative:
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
Request. Fully fund the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP) at its authorized level of $200 million nationally and increase
Illinois' share to $9 Million.
Description. Illinois only received $2.4 million in EQIP dollars in
1998 and in 1999, respectively. In 1999, over 160 landowners could not
participate in the program because there was a shortfall of $1.8
million for projects. An additional $4.5 was needed in 1999 to fund new
EQIP priority areas that were denied because of insufficient funds.
Farmland Protection Program (FPP)
Request. Dedicate $10 million in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year
2002 in the FPP for the Illinois River Basin.
Description. The FPP provides matching funds (up to 50 percent of
the fair-market value) to state, local and Tribal governments to
permanently protect farmland threatened by development from urban and
suburban sprawl, through the purchase of easements that preserve the
land for farm use.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)
Request. Dedicate $1 million in both fiscal years 2001 and fiscal
year 2002 to the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) for the
Illinois River Basin.
Description. WHIP offers cost-share assistance for up to 75 percent
of the habitat restoration expenses and technical assistance for
farmers, ranchers and other landowners who wish to implement wildlife
habitat practices. Eligible practices include native grass restoration,
riparian area restoration, and aquatic habitat establishment.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
Request. Dedicate 400,000 acres of Conservation Reserve Program
acres to the Illinois River Basin for fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year
2002.
Description. The CRP provides farmers with technical and financial
assistance, including annual rental payments, in exchange for removing
environmentally sensitive land from production and implementing
conservation practices such as wildlife habitat restoration and field
windbreaks. This expansion of acreage would bring an estimated $909
million in new federal funding to Illinois for restoration over 15
years of the CRP contract lifetime.
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)
Request. Dedicate 10,000 acres of Wetland Reserve Program to the
Illinois River Basin for permanent easements.
Description. The WRP offers technical and financial assistance to
farmers who wish to restore and protect agricultural wetlands. The USDA
provides up to 100 percent of the wetland restoration costs and up to
100 percent of the fair market agricultural value of the land in return
for permanent or 30-year easements or wetlands restoration cost-share
agreements. The allotment of this acreage would bring an estimated $11
million in new federal funding to Illinois for wetland restorations.
Other natural resources and environment requests include the
following:
Trees Forever Illinois Buffer Initiative (Illinois Department of
Agriculture)
Request. Annual commitment of $200,000 over five years for the
``Trees Forever Buffer Initiative.''
Description. Agriculture and rural America continue to face various
water quality issues including but not limited to surface water quality
and TMDLs, Gulf Hypoxia, nutrient management planning and many others.
The Trees Forever Illinois Buffer Initiative is a project targeted at
the establishment of demonstration projects across the state, which
will highlight the benefits of various types of vegetative buffers.
Projects will include strearnside buffer plants of trees, shrubs and
grasses; streambank stabilization demonstrations; stream channel
enhancements; constructed wetlands; livestock facility border plantings
and various combinations. The purpose of the project is to bring
together various state, federal, and local groups which may already be
promoting components of these practices and apply them to specific
whole farm or whole resource needs.
Mahomet Aquifer Consortium
Request. $10 million for an extensive study of the Mahomet Aquifer
in Central Illinois.
Description. The Mahomet Aquifer Consortium is proposing a study of
the Mahomet Aquifer in Central Illinois. The Study will identify and
resolve water quality and quantity issues, help ensure a water supply
for the future, optimize future water costs, and promote planned
economic development for the communities affected by the aquifer. The
project is broken down into 2 phases with phase one taking 3 years and
an estimated cost of $4 million dollars. Phase two will cost $6 million
and take 6 years to complete.
FOOD NUTRITION AND CONSUMER SERVICES
Request. A total of $405 million to Illinois for the following
domestic food programs:
--National School Lunch Program.--Full funding of this program will
translate into $329.7 million for Illinois. There are currently
1,864,271 students enrolled.
--School Breakfast Program.--Full funding of this program will mean
$22.2 million for Illinois. There are currently 1,022,966
students enrolled.
--Child and Adult Care Food Program.--Full funding of this program
will mean $46 million for Illinois. There are currently 114,819
students participating.
--Summer Food Service Program.--Full funding of this program will
mean $5.0 million for Illinois. There is currently a daily
average of 118,200 students attending.
--Special Milk Program.--Full funding of this program will mean $2.1
million for Illinois. There is currently a daily average of
161,876 students attending.
Description. Every Illinois student needs a strong foundation for
learning. Thousands of children come to school already at risk of
academic failure and we must break that cycle. These nutrition programs
serve a vital role in supporting student educational programs and it is
critical that they be funded at the highest possible levels.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS
National Corn to Ethanol Research Pilot Plant
Request. $14 million for a National Corn to Ethanol Research Pilot
Plant (NCERPP).
Description. The State of Illinois has appropriated $6 million for
construction of the NCERPP at Southern Illinois University at
Edwardsville. The total cost of constructing the project is estimated
at $20 million. The cost of operating the facility will be borne by
industry and university research conducted at the plant. A total of $14
million is needed, and no federal funds were appropriated for this in
fiscal year 2000.
Center for Alternative Agriculture Crops and Products (Southern
Illinois University)
Request. $1.95 million for the Center for Alternative Agriculture
Crops and Products at SIU-Carbondale.
Description. This center synergizes various corporations, agencies,
and regional universities of the heartland and mid-south to explore
alternative income crops and products for Southern Illinois, Illinois,
and the entire region. Emphasis would be on increased farm income and
increased rural development through added production, processing, and
employment. The plan calls for $1.95 million for renovation and
expansion of a 13,000-sq. foot building on SIU-Carbondale campus.
Southern Illinois University/University of Illinois Agriculture
Outreach Center
Request. $2.5 million for a joint SIU/U of I agriculture outreach
center.
Description. Located on the Carbondale, IL Campus, University of
Illinois Extension Service and SIU College of Agriculture Agribusiness
Economics Department will partner to serve Southern Illinois
constituents via on-site classroom instruction, digital television
delivery, and web-based access. Building 103 on the Carbondale campus
would be renovated, expanded, and rewired. Estimated cost is $1.8
million.
Plant and Alternative Crop Training Center-Belleville, IL
Request. $2.5 million for a Plant and Alternative Crop Training
Center at Southern Illinois University Belleville Research Station.
Description. Project seeks to add a 10,000-sq. ft. facility for
university and industrial training on the SIU Belleville Research
Station site near the Mid-America airport. The facility would allow
agricultural industries of the Metro-East (St. Louis) area to have
access to an indoor multimedia training/meeting facility. This plan
allows for synergy with Donald Danforth Plant Science Center shared use
of land and 1,200-sq. ft. of wet-laboratory space. Construction cost is
estimated to be $2.5 million.
Soybean Genomics Lab at Southern Illinois University
Request. $189,000 for the Soybean Genomics Lab at SIU.
Description. Expand the current laboratory at Southern Illinois
University to accommodate four added faculty researchers in soybean
genomics and transformation.
Peoria Research Lab Invasive Species Biological Control Center (through
Agriculture Research Service.)
Request. $4-8 million to establish an Invasive Species Biological
Control Center.
Description. The U.S. is facing an unprecedented need to develop
viable strategies for management of invasive species. Biological
control is a fundamental management strategy that can be used to manage
invasive pests both before and after introduction. The Midwest has
become a focal point for invasive species introductions due to its
location at the heart of the Great Lakes Region and as home to major
international shipping and air transportation systems. We propose that
developing a coordinated administrative structure and facility to
enhance invasive species management and biological control activities
in the region should be a joint priority of USDA and state partners.
Agriculture Research Service--Greenhouse Facility at University of
Illinois
Request. $4 million for the University of Illinois for construction
of a state-of-the-art greenhouse facility.
Description. The State of Illinois seeks to construct a state-of-
the-art greenhouse facility that will support research associated with
the Maize (corn) Genetics Stocks Collection and the National Soybean
Germplasm. Collection at the University of Illinois. (The University
received $400,000 in planning funds in fiscal year 2000 for this
project.)
Agriculture Research Service--Laboratory in Peoria
Request. $4 million for the ARS Laboratory in Peoria
Description. The State of Illinois supports funding for
improvements and renovation to the ARS laboratory in Peoria. ($1.8
million was appropriated for fiscal year 2000 for this purpose.)
Soybean Disease Biotechnology Research Center
Request. $3.5 million for the National Soybean Research Laboratory
(NRSL) at the University of Illinois.
Description. Fiscal year 2001 request is $3.5 million. To be
established within the National Soybean Research Laboratory (NSRL) at
the University of Illinois, the Center will be the first line of
defense against major soybean diseases that threaten the most important
``biofactory'' of new foods and uses in the future, namely, the soybean
crop. Scientists in the Center will employ cutting edge biotechnology
research to provide soybeans with new and improved mechanisms of escape
from, tolerance of, and resistance to major pathogens, including
soybean cyst nematode (SCN) and other soy diseases that threaten the
profitability of the soybean industry. The Center will draw on the
17,000 lines in the National Soybean Germplasm Collection at the NSRL
and apply the power of structural, comparative, and functional genomics
and genetic transformation. The Illinois soybean industry will provide
funds to help establish the Center and support its research program.
Illinois-Missouri Biotechnology Alliance
Request. $3 million in funding for the Illinois-Missouri
Biotechnology Alliance.
Description. The State of Illinois supports funding for the
Illinois-Missouri Biotechnology Alliance to continue research at the
Universities of Illinois and Missouri on biotechnology. Congress
appropriated $1.184 million in funds for this project in fiscal year
2000.
Postharvest Antimicrobial Resistance
Request. Support funding for Agriculture Research Service's
Postharvest Antimicrobial Resistance food safety research project at
the Peoria Lab.
Description. Congress appropriated $400,000 for this project in
fiscal year 2000.
Aflatoxin Research at the University of Illinois
Request. $130,000 for Aflatoxin Research at the University of
Illinois.
Description. The State of Illinois requests funds to continue
aflatoxin research at the University of Illinois.
farm and foreign agricultural services
Warehouse Examination Agreements (Illinois Department of Agriculture)
Request. $400,000 to cost-share additional expense of warehouse
examinations.
Description. Prior to 1985, federal policies dictated that
commodities would be isolated from market prices and forces until
prices rose to specified levels. As a result, large inventories and
Government owned commodities and commodities pledged as collateral for
price support loans accumulated and the facilities win which these
commodities were stored had to be examined to adequately protect the
Commodity Credit Corporation's (CCC) interests. This led to CCC relying
heavily on cooperative agreement because the volume of workload
associated with these high stock levels did not make it feasible for
CCC to hire and train a workforce that would be adequate to conduct all
the necessary examinations. USDA terminated this program in 1997.
Illinois' storage share and federal reimbursements were: In 1993/4,
7.78 million bushels of grain stored--$364,920 reimbursed; in 1994/5,
7.87 million bushels--$364,820 reimbursed, in 1995/6, 8.04 million
bushels of grain--$379,487 reimbursed. Given the fact that today USDA
is estimating that 70 percent and 80 percent respectively of Illinois's
1999 corn and soybean crops are presently committed in LDP's or CCC
loans, the Department is asking USDA to again cost share the additional
expense of warehouse examinations.
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE
Quality Assurance Pilot Certification Program for Small Meat Processors
Request. $200,000 per year over three years for a Quality Assurance
Pilot Certification Program for small meat processors.
Description. This Pilot Program is an effort by the Illinois
Department of Agriculture to establish a Quality Assurance
Certification Program for small meat and poultry slaughter and
processing plants. Under this certification program, the Department
will contract with food safety experts to provide education and HACCP
compliance training to plant management and employees. After completion
of the project, material can be used by other states.
National Center for Food Safety and Technology
Request. $3 million for the National Center for and Technology
Description. The State of Illinois seeks continuation of the $3
million received by the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) for its
National Center for & Technology through the fiscal year 2000
Agriculture Appropriations bill. The Center needs the funding to
continue its progress in fighting the growing incidence of food borne
illness. The NCFST has been fighting food borne illness for over a
decade. It is a unique collaboration between government, academia and
the food industry that develops manufacturing methods to detect and
prevent contamination of foods. The NCFST's partners are the U.S. Food
& Drug Administration, IIT and almost 70 members of the food industry.
IIT Center for Safe Food for Small Businesses
Request. The State of Illinois supports the Illinois Institute of
Technology's request for $3 million in federal support.
Description. This Center provides direct technical assistance to
small and medium sized food manufacturers to assure both safe products
for public consumption and improve the companies competitiveness. IIT
will be requesting continuation of federal funding for the overall
National Center for Food Safety & Technology. The State of Illinois
will provide $1 million in fiscal 2001 for this project.
National Food Testing Center at the University of Illinois
Request. $25 million to create a state of the art National Food
Testing Center at the University of Illinois.
Description. To create a state-of-the-art facility for conducting
safety and efficacy research on new, improved, and functional foods,
including health-related, genetically enhanced foods. The National Food
Testing Center will support and expedite the most important experiments
on foods, that is, tests to assure that they are safe and effective.
Through these experiments, hundreds of new and improved foods and
related products will be tested and approved for human use, resulting
in greatly improved human health, quality of life, and longevity. This
will enable the U.S. to capture proprietary benefits from its
investment in agricultural and biomedical research. In addition,
consumers of these products will be fully confident that these products
will be safe and effective.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Pork Producers' Producer-Owned Cooperative Initiative
Request. Support funding for the capitalization of pork producers'
producer-owned cooperatives.
Description. The National Pork Producers are asking for $200
million for grants to develop, establish, and assist in the
capitalization of producer-owned cooperatives. These will facilitate
slaughtering, processing, distribution, and marketing of livestock and
livestock products. They believe that producer-owned, value-added
marketing cooperatives provide the best tools for the future and will
allow independent pork producers to stay in business.
Belvidere-Boone County, Illinois New Uses Ag-Tech District
Request. $400,000 annually five years for the Belvidere-Boone
County, Illinois New Uses Ag-Tech District
Description. The New Uses Economy from bio-based products is poised
for growth as public and private sectors begin to shift their research
and development away from petroleum-based products. In order to
leverage local, state and private investment and to continue the
development of the project, federal funding of $400,000 per year is
necessary for the next five years to undertake the following: (1)
Continuation of the discovery process including the definition of the
New Uses Economy and the definition of a Green Zone Program; (2)
Expansion of partnerships with the private sector, universities, and
the State; (3) Development of the Ag-Tech Park including master
planning and site development; and, (4) Pursue continued funding
through private corporations, foundations, and state and federal
grants.
MARKET DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Market Access Program
Request. Fully fund market development programs.
Description. The Market Access Program (MAP) uses funds from the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC) to help U.S. producers, exporters, private companies, and other
trade organizations finance promotional activities for U.S.
agricultural products. Each year, MAP activities help launch and expand
sales of a wide variety of U.S. agricultural, fish, and forest products
overseas.
Farmers benefit from MAP as the primary suppliers of commodities.
All regions of the country benefit from the program's employment and
economic effects from expanded agricultural export markets. In 1997,
agricultural exports totaled $57.3 billion, generating about 974,000
full-time American jobs, including 562,000 non-farm sector jobs.
More than one million Americans now have jobs that depend on U.S.
agricultural exports. USDA economists calculate that each dollar earned
from agricultural exports stimulates another $1.32 in business activity
for the economy.
Since 1985, the Market Access Program and its predecessors, the
Targeted Export Assistance Program (TEA) and the Market Promotion
Program (MPP), have helped boost agricultural exports, resulting in a
positive agricultural trade surplus of $12.5 billion in fiscal year
1999, and contributing billions of dollars more in increased economic
activity and additional tax revenues.
Agriculture Structure Center (University of Illinois)
Request. $320,000 for an Agriculture Structure Center in Illinois.
Description. The start of the new millennium finds farmers dealing
with a lot of stress. In addition to 12 year lows in corn prices, 27
year lows in soybean prices and 50 year lows in hog prices, tremendous
concern lies in the rapid consolidation of farms and the businesses
that serve them. In the United States, essentially five companies
control most of the field seed business, four to five companies control
most of the meat packing business, twenty to twenty-five companies
control most of the chicken business and ten companies control half of
the food retailing business. Within ten years, thirty beef cattle
feeding and fifty hog-producing businesses will finish 50 percent or
more of all beef cattle and hogs. This rapidly changing structure has
led many in production agriculture to wonder if there will be a role in
the future for independent producers. Existing public and private
institutions are not well situated at this time to provide answers to
these producers on how they can remain relevant and competitive in a
highly integrated, global business.
Institute for Value Added and Alternative Agriculture Products at
Southern Illinois University
Request. $175,000 for an Institute for Value Added and Alternative
Agriculture at Southern Illinois University.
Description. One method of improving the economic condition of the
agricultural sector is to increase the value of the products that are
sold and to create a greater demand for existing or new food or
agricultural products which can be produced in Illinois. If more feed
grains, as well as other agricultural produce, were processed before
they leave the state, it would not only increase the value of the
product being exported, but also provide tremendous employment
opportunities and industrial growth. An institute for value added and
alternative agricultural products would contribute to economic growth
through research and development of new and/or improved products. The
proposed institute would be a focal point for agricultural commodity
groups and agricultural related industries. The university is in a
unique position to support such an institute with a well established
College of Agriculture with current programs in food and nutrition,
animal and plant science, agricultural economics, as well as faculty in
other colleges with interests in marketing, genetics, bioengineering
and economic development.
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
Clinical Pharmacology Program
Request. $3 million for fiscal year 2001 for the FDA's Clinical
Pharmacology Program.
Description. The existing clinical pharmacology program offers many
benefits-development of new drugs, training in pharmacology, important
research, resource for the local and regional communities, and
maintaining the U.S. as a world leader in drug development and
research. Some of the research projects that clinical pharmacology
programs have been involved in are: AIDS, diabetes, heart attacks,
lupus, and kidney disease. Despite an authorization of $3 million in
fiscal year 2000, the program only received an appropriation of
$500,000. Congress first authorized the clinical pharmacology program
in 1991. Up to $1.9 million annually in funds was authorized for FDA to
set up clinical pharmacology programs at several medical schools
throughout the U.S. An FDA peer review panel established the program at
four universities: U of I College of Medicine in Peoria, Meharry
Medical College in Tennessee, Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, and the State
University of New York in Buffalo. IN 1998, the program was
reauthorized in the FDA Modernization Act until 2002 at $3 million per
year.
ANIMAL PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS)
National Food Animal Institute (Illinois Department of Agriculture)
Request. Three-year commitment of $1 million annually for a
National Food Animal Institute in Illinois.
Description. The Institute would be established by the Illinois
Department of Agriculture to review research through peer review and to
publish and disseminate unbiased information about all the aspects of
the food animal industry. It would maintain comprehensive information
systems for the improvement and enhancement of the food animal industry
for use by the public, government agencies, and other interested
parties. The Institute must fulfill its purpose with unbiased
integrity.
Pseudorabies Swine Slaughter
Request. Support full funding for Animal Plant and Health
Inspection Service (APHIS). Funds from APHIS would be used to institute
a pseudorabies swine slaughter surveillance collection point at
Johnsonville Packing, Momence, IL.
Description. Currently, Illinois is struggling to acquire an
adequate number of slaughter surveillance samples to maintain the
compliance established by the National Program Standards. In 1998,
first point testing was conducted at the end of the year to achieve the
required numbers. It has been established that slaughter surveillance
of cull sows and boars is the superior method of determining the PRV
status in herds at the grassroots level. Funds from APHIS are critical
toward the establishment of a pseudorabies swine slaughter surveillance
collection point in Illinois.
Swine Producer Laboratory Testing
Request. Support a one-time appropriation from Animal Plant and
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for $100,000 to defray the cost for
swine producers conducting laboratory testing necessary to diagnose or
maintain the health of their swine herds.
Description. With the current low prices for hogs, many producers
are either foregoing diagnostic or preventative health measures in an
effort to obtain some profit from their animals. Maintaining a healthy
swine herd helps the producer produce his product in a more efficient
manner. Providing this assistance would insure that animals that are
unhealthful and diseased would have access to proper diagnosis and
eliminate potential disease situations arising in the herd and possible
spread within the swine industry. In 1997, Illinois produced 1.82
billion pounds of pork, placing it fourth in U.S. hog production. The
number of hog producers in Illinois continues to drop: 8,800 hog farms
in 1996; 7,500 hog farms in 1997; and 7,000 hog farms in 1998.
APHIS-Gypsy Moth ``Slow the Spread'' Program
Request. Support fiscal year 20O1 spending levels to provide
Illinois with an estimated $200,000 for the APFUS program.
Description. The Illinois Department of Agriculture, under
authorities provided in the Insect Pest and Plant Disease Act, annually
cooperates with APHIS and various units of local and county government
to identify and control the Gypsy Moth in Illinois. The annual program
includes both the identification of gypsy moth infestations as well as
a treatment control program. In the past, no funding has been
transferred between agencies. In the trapping (identification) program,
APHIS has concentrated on the Chicago Metropolitan area and the
Illinois Department of Agriculture has worked in the balance of the
state. Once an area is identified as being in need of a treatment
control, the APHIS has provided the biological pesticide, the local
unit of government has provided funding for the applicator and the
Illinois Department of Agriculture has provided overall project
oversight and coordination. In fiscal year 1999, the APHIS provided
funding to states for an expansion of the trapping (identification)
program to attempt to further reduce the spread of the insect.
Johne's Disease Pilot Program (Illinois Department of Agriculture)
Request. Support a three-year commitment from the Animal Plan and
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for $200,000 for the purpose of
establishing a Johne's Disease pilot program.
Description. Johne's disease is a wasting disease of cattle, sheep,
goats and cervidae. This disease is contracted through direct contact
with infected animals, which are generally infected at a young age, but
may not exhibit signs of the disease until they are four or five years
of age. Johne's disease is characterized by weight loss, severe
diarrhea, depression, and poor performance. There is no cure for
Johne's disease. It has been estimated that economic losses can amount
to $227 per cow. A recent National Animal Health Monitoring System
(NAHMS) sampling of Illinois dairy cows, indicated a prevalence of at
least 10 percent in the cull cows from the dairy herds tested. Illinois
would like to start a pilot program that could be used as a model for
the U.S.
Renewables Bioprocessing Research Program (University of Illinois)
Request. $20 million for the Renewables Bioprocessing Research
Program (RBRP) at the University of Illinois.
Description. The Renewables Bioprocessing Research Program (RBRP)
is an effort by the University in collaboration with other agencies and
institutions to provide ``plant to product'' research information for
the production and processing of corn, soybeans, and wheat. Objectives
of the RBRP program are: (1) Establish an interdisciplinary
collaborative research effort in the production and development of new
food and industrial products from corn, soybeans, and wheat coproducts;
(2) Establish an interdisciplinary collaborative research effort to
improve the overall efficiency of converting renewable corn, soybean
and wheat coproducts into saleable products; (3) Enhance the
development of small-scale laboratory procedures to accurately predict
the genetic capabilities of different genotypes, phonetypes, and
varieties to make desired end use products; and, (4) Provide commercial
companies with a single integrated program of contract research.
National Facility for USDA Animal Health
Request. Support USDA's efforts to fund a national facility for
Animal Health in Ames, Iowa.
Description. This new facility would replace the National Animal
Disease Center (NADC), the National Veterinary Services laboratory
(NVSL), and the Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB). All of these
units are in substandard facilities, except for one building at the
NADC that is new and few APHIS buildings that will be renovated to fit
in the new plan. The three laboratories, especially NADC, are national
and international in that they have the capability address a broad
spectrum of major livestock diseases in BL-2, BL-3, and BL-3 Ag
(containment facilities.) Improving competitiveness in the world
market, enhancing our nation's livestock industries, and protecting
against emerging diseases more than ever depends on maintaining
disease-free animals and ensuring that systems are in place to respond
to disease outbreaks. Healthy livestock are fundamental to a safe food
supply for the American public.
National Coolwater Broodfish Center, SIU
Request. The State of Illinois and Southern Illinois University
request $250,000 per year for this project.
Description. SIU seeks funding of $250,000/year from USDA to
establish a center than can expand the aquaculture industry in
Illinois. The goal of this concept is to develop a center to
domesticate suitable strains of coolwater fish species that will allow
the farm belt to become a greater participant in the aquaculture
industry. Currently, most aquaculture occurs with warm water fish
(catfish) in the south and coldwater fish (trout and salmon) in the
north. There is a lack of domesticated species suitable for aquaculture
use in the middle latitudes in the U.S. The impact of this project
extends to a vast area beyond. The proposed center would take advantage
of the existing on-campus strength present at the Fisheries and
Illinois Aquaculture Center, and would:
--Domesticate suitable strains of coolwater species for commercial
foodfish production.
--Selectively breed coolwater fishes for desirable traits (e.g.,
rapid growth, improved dress-out percents, and disease
resistance).
--Maintain genetic histories of coolwater broodfishes.
--Provide selectively bred coolwater broodfishes to commercial
producers throughout all coolwater regions of the U.S.A.
Land Use Impacts and Water Quality Research
Request. $450,000 for Land Use Impacts and Water Quality Research
at Southern Illinois University (SIU)
Description. Building on 8 years of collaborative research focusing
on basic and applied research concerning groundwater, agricultural
chemicals, and the impacts of natural disasters on groundwater, soils,
and diversity, this proposal focuses on the impacts of land use on
water quality. Changes in land use due to urbanization, growth of large
animal feed lots, and agricultural practices impact water quality,
flow, and management. SIU will organize and manage a research program
to provide a scientifically valid basis upon which to base management
and regulatory decisions on land use and water resources. $350,000 was
included for this project in fiscal year 2000 Agriculture Appropriation
Bill.
Should you need additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact Bobby Thomson in my Washington, DC office at (202) 624-7772.
Thank you for your consideration of these requests and for your
leadership on this most important legislation.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE STATE OF WYOMING
This testimony supports fiscal year 2001 expenditures for the
Department of Agriculture's Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP) in the amount of $350,000,000 and requests that $12,000,000 be
designated for the Colorado River Salinity Control Program.
This testimony supports fiscal year 2001 appropriations for the
Department of Agriculture's Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP) to carry out Colorado River salinity control activities. The
State of Wyoming is a member State of the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Forum (Forum), a seven-State organization created by the
Governors of the Colorado River Basin States. The Forum's Executive
Director, Jack Barnett, will submit separate testimony in support of
this requested appropriation and the State of Wyoming has participated
in the development of, and concurs with the statements made in, the
Forum's testimony to this Subcommittee.
Wyoming is also represented on the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Advisory Council, which was created by the 1974 Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Act (Public Law 93-320). Like the Forum, the
Advisory Council is composed of gubernatorial representatives of the
seven Colorado River Basin States and serves as a liaison between the
seven States and the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture and
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It
advises these Federal officials and the involved agencies on the
progress of efforts to control the salinity of the Colorado River and
annually makes funding recommendations, including the amount believed
necessary to be expended by the USDA for its on-farm Colorado River
Salinity Control (CRSC) Program. Our testimony makes those funding
requests that are contained within the Advisory Council's written
program funding recommendations.
The Plan of Implementation and the numeric water quality criteria
set for three Lower Colorado River stations constitute the State-
adopted, EPA-approved, water quality standards for salinity the
Colorado River. Jointly developed and revised each three years by the
States and involved Federal agencies, the Plan of Implementation is
being carried out to ensure continuing compliance with the numeric
water quality criteria for salinity.
During its October 1999 meeting, the Advisory Council recommended
that at least $17,500,000 be expended by the Department of Agriculture
for cost-sharing to implement salinity reduction practices (funds that
are matched with individual contractor's cost-share funds) in fiscal
year 2001, plus sufficient funds for administration, technical
information and education, to assure that the Program's progress of
removing salt and preventing additional salt loading into the Colorado
River system stays on the schedule set forth within the Plan of
Implementation.
Should a lesser funding level be provided for this important basin-
wide water quality program, the progress (as measured in tons of salt
prevented from entering the Colorado River system) achieved by the USDA
component of the multi-agency, State and Federal Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program will fall far short of meeting the rate of
salinity control determined to be determined necessary to assure
compliance with the basin-wide standards for salinity in the Colorado
River. Failure to maintain the standards' numeric criteria could result
in the imposition of state-line water quality standards (as opposed to
the successful basin-wide approach that has been in place since 1975)
and impair the Colorado River Basin States' ability to develop their
Compact-apportioned water supplies. Further, it is unmistakable that
funding shortfalls will result in significantly higher costs to
implement the same level of salinity control through the CRSC Program
in future years.
The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-127) provided for the CRSC Program to continue in the future--
as a component part of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP). We view the inclusion of the Salinity Control Program in EQIP
as a Federal recognition of commitment to complying with the Colorado
River salinity water quality standards. The Secretary of Agriculture
has a vital role in meeting that commitment. We urge the Subcommittee
to remind the Secretary of Agriculture of his obligations under that
Federal commitment as he makes decisions about national conservation
priority areas and priority resource concerns. The intention of Public
Law 104-127 is that the nation's agricultural programs be ``locally led
and driven'' and we agree with that approach. Since the enactment of
that law, however, the Salinity Control Program has not been funded at
a level adequate to ensure that the water quality standards for
salinity in the Colorado River can be maintained at or below the
numeric criteria levels specified in the standard.
The Colorado River Basin States have urged the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to designate the Colorado River Salinity Control Program as
a national conservation priority area as provided for in the USDA's
promulgated regulations for the EQIP. Although numerous requests have
been made for this designation, USDA's responses have justified the
lack of national conservation priority area designations by pointing to
the lack of adequate EQIP funding. An authorization of $350,000,000 for
EQIP funding in fiscal year 2001--an additional $150,000,000 above the
$200,000,000 level minimum specified in Public Law 104-127--is both
appropriate and needed.
I accordingly request that this committee support the borrowing of
$350,000,000 from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) in fiscal year
2001 for the EQIP Program, and that the Congress advise the
Administration to designate $12,000,000 of the EQIP funding for the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. Thank you for the
opportunity to submit this testimony.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Ed Hiler, Vice
Chancellor for Agriculture and Life Sciences in the Texas A&M
University system. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today, to describe a few exciting research projects we have underway,
and to ask for your support for continued federal funding. New
technology is the life blood of American agriculture. With the 1996
Farm Bill and resulting phase down in federal farm programs, it is
imperative that research continues providing a technological
underpinning for agriculture. Today, I will describe several examples
of how we can provide this underpinning.
DESIGNING FRUITS, VEGETABLES AND OTHER FOOD PLANTS FOR PREVENTION OF
LIFE-THREATENING DISEASES
To identify plant ``phytochemicals'' that prevent disease and
enhance those compounds in fruits, vegetables, and other food plants
that promote human health. Objectives seek to reduce the risk of, to
slow, and/or to prevent diseases such as cancer, heart disease, stroke,
and atherosclerosis. Consumers, health care providers, farmers, and
government will benefit from the production, consumption, and health
effects of producing and consuming these improved plants. We are
requesting increased funding for this important continuing project at
$2,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.
EFFICIENT IRRIGATION FOR WATER CONSERVATION IN THE RIO GRANDE BASIN
Recent drought conditions in the border region of the Rio Grande
Basin highlight the importance of ample water resources for the
region's economy and environment. More efficient agricultural and urban
irrigation systems can conserve large amounts of water that can be used
for other purposes. The objective of this two-state initiative is to
increase the efficiency of agricultural and urban landscape irrigation
and encourage development of efficient water markets in the basin. We
are requesting funding for this project at $3,250,000 for fiscal year
2001.
ANIMAL FIBER RESEARCH
Appropriations are sought to conduct wool, mohair and cashmere
research that will stabilize and increase the profitability of the
sheep, Angora, and cashmere goat industries in the United States and
Texas while providing U.S. consumers with high quality animal fibers at
internationally competitive prices. In this three-state initiative,
emphasis will be placed on the development and expanded use of
objective fiber measurements in the areas of nutrition, management,
selection, harvesting, and marketing. We are requesting funding for
this project at $300,000 for fiscal year 2001.
FARM-LEVEL IMPACTS OF AGRICULTURAL POLICY
Funds are needed to conduct agricultural policy research that
directly supports congressional committees involved in setting
agricultural policy. This two-state research activity emphasizes the
regional and farm-level effects of alternative agricultural policies on
crop producers. Monitoring performance at the farm level continues to
be particularly critical as government explores its role in providing
an income safety net for American agriculture. We are requesting
funding for this project at $500,000 for fiscal year 2001.
LIVESTOCK AND DAIRY POLICY ANALYSIS
Funds are needed to allow Texas A&M University and Cornell
University to conduct agricultural policy research on the livestock and
dairy industries that will assist congressional committees in
developing new legislation for agricultural programs. Legislative
options will be analyzed to determine policy impacts on various sectors
of the agricultural economy, markets and land prices. Monitoring the
performance of the dairy sector at the farm level will be particularly
critical at a time of regulatory dairy policy reform mandated by the
1996 Farm Bill and government roles in providing an income safety net
for American agriculture. We are requesting funding for this project at
$625,000 for fiscal year 2001.
CENTER FOR NORTH AMERICAN STUDIES
This two-state funding initiative, which has received continual
support from Congress since fiscal year 1994, would continue and expand
the programs of the Center for North American Studies headquartered in
The Texas A&M University System. The Center provides leadership for the
promotion of stronger agricultural relationships among Canada, Mexico
and the United States through cooperative study, research, policy
analysis and training. We are requesting funding for this project at
$300,000 for fiscal year 2001.
CONSORTIUM FOR AGRICULTURAL SOILS MITIGATION OF GREENHOUSE GASES
(CASMGS)
A consortium of eight Land Grand universities, USDA agencies, and a
private-public research laboratory seeks funds to develop and verify
scientifically defensible methods to measure and estimate the effects
of soil conservation and crop management practices on carbon
sequestration in agricultural soils. The consortium will also assess
the economic and environmental consequences of programs designed to
sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide in agricultural soils. We are
requesting funding of $5,000,000 from USDA for this project for fiscal
year 2001.
SHRIMP AQUACULTURE RESEARCH
Federal support is needed to maintain continued funding for ongoing
efforts and to expand programs of the U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming
Program (USMSFP). This program, currently funded by the USDA/
Cooperative State Research, Extension and Education Service (CSREES)
through the Oceanic Institute in Hawaii and the Gulf Coast Research
Laboratory Consortium as based in the Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station and The Texas A&M University System Agriculture Program. We are
requesting funding for this project at $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.
INTERNATIONAL GOAT RESEARCH AT PRAIRIE VIEW A&M UNIVERSITY
Congressional funds are sought to continue the effort supporting
dairy and meat goat research at the International Goat Research Center
at Prairie View A&M University, a member of The Texas A&M University
System. We are requesting funding for this project at $750,000 for
fiscal year 2001.
NEW PRODUCTS FROM RANGELANDS AT TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY-KINGSVILLE
Congressional funds are sought to continue research efforts to
support the commercialization of new industrial and food crops from
native plants--such as cacti and mesquite--from arid lands, greatly
benefitting Americans who live in the southwestern United States. We
are requesting funding for this project at $120,000 for fiscal year
2001.
SOUTHERN PLAINS COTTON RESEARCH AND EDUCATION CONSORTIUM
The cotton industry in the Southern Plains is under unprecedented
stress from declining prices due to strong global competition, improved
boll weevil management, and increased cotton acreage in the
southeastern U. S. An agricultural research and education consortium
composed of Texas Tech University, the Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station, the Texas Agricultural Extension Service, and USDA
Agricultural Research Service has been formed to address these
challenges in the Southern Plains. The consortium proposes to initiate
a five-year, $27.5 million program to increase profits of Southern
Plains cotton farmers and processors. The effort will accomplish its
goal by developing and disseminating improved cotton germplasm, crop
management practices, pest control programs, textile processing
technologies, and marketing programs. We are requesting funding for
this project at $5,500,000 for fiscal year 2001.
AGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENT--LANDSCAPE ISSUES
The focus of the Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research
is on agriculture and the environment. Funding for this initiative will
be used to continue development of (1) conceptual approaches that can
be used to resolve environmental problems in agriculture while
maintaining the competitiveness of the industry, (2) modeling tools
that analyze policy alternatives to determine their effectiveness in
achieving environmental objectives and their economic impacts on the
targeted industry, and (3) implications of smart growth initiatives on
production agriculture. We are requesting funding for this project from
USDA at $750,000 for fiscal year 2001.
PROTECTING U.S. AGRICULTURE FROM BIO-TERRORISM & EXOTIC BIO-INVADERS
An integrated system for protecting U.S. agriculture and its food
supply against the threat of bioterrorism is recognized as an
increasingly high priority addition to similar systems for protecting
humans and cyberspace. The system will also work for natural or
accidental outbreaks of animal and plant disease resulting from
introduction of exotic bio-agents. The proposed agricultural bio-
security system will include a surveillance network utilizing GPS and
satellite imaging technology, field and laboratory based diagnostic
capacity deploying DNA-chip technology to identify and characterize
bio-agents, and a geo-referenced information system for predicting and
tracking the spread of bio-agent after introduction. The system will
include means to support intervention and mitigation following attack.
The system will be developed in partnership with the USDA's
Agricultural Research Service, other universities, and the private
sector. We are requesting funding for this project at $5,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001.
CENTER FOR FOOD SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
Appropriations are requested to construct and equip a 125,000 sq.
ft. facility at College Station, Texas to house: USDA-Agricultural
Research Service food safety programs and the Texas A&M University
Institute of Food Science and Engineering. Dedicated incubator space
will be provided for entrepreneurs seeking to break into food
manufacturing. We are requesting funding for this project at
$30,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.
ECONOMICALLY & ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND RICE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT IN
THE U.S.
Privately held rice lands provide several societal and ecological
benefits. Rice has an annual impact of about $13 billion on the economy
of the U.S., and represents the economic, social, and environmental
underpinning of major sections of the Gulf Coast. Rice production in
these soils provides several environmental benefits, including wildlife
habitats, water filtration through wetlands, and flood protection.
Federal support is needed to identify and place values on ecological
services provided by rice production and to design and evaluate
technologies and policies that increase these public benefits while
improving the industry's economic viability. We are requesting funding
from USDA for this project at $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.
INCREASING FOOD SAFETY THROUGH ADVANCED MOLECULAR TECHNOLOGIES
Appropriations are sought to develop and test the application of
advanced molecular technologies for enhancing the safety of the
nation's supply of meats, fruits, and vegetables. Foods contaminated
with animal wastes and other sources of bacterial pathogens annually
cause millions of illnesses and thousands of deaths. New and rapidly
advancing molecular technologies promise to make possible the early and
economical tracking and investigation of such pathogens. This will
significantly increase our ability to determine sources of outbreaks
and to anticipate the effects of food production and processing
practices on the ability of these organisms to cause disease. The Texas
and Iowa Agricultural Experiment Stations and Texas Tech University
propose cooperative public-private research needed to put such
technologies in place throughout the nation and the world. We are
requesting funding for this project at $1,250,000 for fiscal year 2001.
NATURAL FIBERS MARKETS AND POLICY ANALYSIS
Scientists at Texas Tech University and Texas A&M will determine,
monitor and continuously assess the status of the U.S. natural fiber
(cotton, mohair and wool) industries within the context of the U.S. and
world natural and synthetic fiber markets. It will periodically
evaluate the impacts of proposed, anticipated and potential policy,
trade and macroeconomic changes/trends in both the U.S. and abroad, on
the U.S. natural fiber and textiles markets. The program will
anticipate shifts in the levels of competitive advantage of U.S.
industries and the resulting capital/resource flows that might result
from changing economic and policy environments. These types of analyses
are particularly important in light of the current debate about the
role that the U.S. government should play in the agricultural sector/
markets, and about the costs and benefits of global trade
liberalization. We are requesting funding for this project at $550,000
for fiscal year 2001.
RISK MANAGEMENT SAFETY NET
Increased volatility of commodity prices and dissatisfaction with
crop insurance as a policy tool have heightened interest in the role of
government in providing a safety net for U.S. agriculture. This
initiative would support analyses of alternative safety net proposals
as a risk management tool for production agriculture as a substitute
for conventional farm programs. We are requesting funding for this
project at $500,000 for fiscal year 2001.
STRENGTHENING OUR CAPACITY TO CARE: COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR YOUTH AND
FAMILIES
This initiative will provide a comprehensive youth and family
development program designed to strengthen and enhance local community
educational programming in youth life skills, community service,
workforce preparation, character education, fathering support and
parenting education. The goal of this initiative will result in the
empowerment of families and increased ability of youth to be successful
contributing members of society. We are requesting funding for this
project at $2,500,000 for fiscal year 2001.
IMPROVED STRESS TOLERANCE OF CORN FOR THE SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS AND
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Farmers and consumers in many parts of the world would benefit from
corn hybrids that combine high yield potential (like those developed in
the United States and Europe) with the stress tolerance found in
certain tropical and subtropical varieties. Working in close
cooperation over the past several years, the Texas A&M University
System (TAMUS), Texas Tech University (TTU), and the International
Maize and Wheat Research Center (CIMMYT) have demonstrated the
feasibility of introducing genes for stress tolerance into germplasm
with high yield potential. These three partner institutions propose a
five-year, $7.5 million effort to introduce multiple and complementary
genes for drought, heat, nutrient, disease, and insect tolerance (from
tropical and subtropical germplasm) into high-yielding germplasm
adapted to the Southern High Plains and tropical/subtropical
environments. The anticipated result of this effort are hybrids with
yield potentials equal to the best commercially available materials and
no more than half the sensitivity of current materials to moderate and
severe drought, heat, nutrient, disease, and insect stresses. We are
requesting USDA funding for this project at $500,000 for fiscal year
2001.
CENTER FOR HISPANIC FAMILY STUDIES
This initiative from Texas A&M University-Kingsville will provide
leadership for teaching and research about the Hispanic family in the
United States, including life span analysis ranging from infant studies
to gerontology. Child care, nutritional and educational services will
be offered to the studied population. We are requesting funding for
this project at $3,300,000 for fiscal year 2001.
THE BORDERLANDS: HUMAN IMPACTS ON AVIAN COMMUNITY DYNAMICS
Texas A&M University-Kingsville seeks appropriation to examine the
immediate and future impacts that a growing human population in
southern Texas/northern Mexico borderlands is having (and will have) on
the diverse avian communities that share this region. The evaluation of
the effects of invasive species, urbanization, environmental
contaminants, and agricultural practices have on avian ecology, such as
changes in reproduction, mortality, resource allocation, and the
temporal and spatial distribution of species will benefit our
understanding of how to better manage this rich resource now and in the
future. We are requesting funding for this project at $1,660,000 for
fiscal year 2001.
ENHANCING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION IN SALINE REGIONS
Congressional appropriations are sought to conduct research into
methods of increasing terrestrial and aquatic agricultural production
in regions with shortages of fresh water but abundant supplies of
saline water. Technology developed as a result of this research effort
will be transferred to the private sector for commercialization. Texas
A&M University-Kingsville requests funding for this project at $320,000
for fiscal year 2001.
EMERGING HEALTH & TRADE ISSUES IMPACTING NATIONAL CATTLE INDUSTRIES:
JOHNE'S DISEASE
Develop modern methods for detecting and preventing Johne's Disease
of cattle to improve animal health, enhance production efficiency and
eliminate disruption of vital interstate and international trade. We
are requesting funding for this project at $2,000,000 for fiscal year
2001.
A FUNGAL GENOME INTERNET
The Fungal Genome Internet (FGI) will integrate fungal genome
research at institutions in Georgia, Louisiana, New Mexico, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, and Texas. The long term objective of the FGI is to
use the information derived from fungal genomes to enhance the
beneficial aspects of fungi and to control their negative impact on our
society. The FGI will be an academic focal point for the functional
analysis, including bioinformatics and transcriptional profiling, of
three important fungal genomes. The FGI will also coordinate functional
genomics activities in other academic and industrial labs. At Texas A&M
University, the FGI will be a joint effort with the Departments of
Biology, Plant Pathology and Microbiology, Biochemistry and Biophysics
and the Crop Biotechnology Center. Texas A&M University requests
funding for this project at $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.
NEW FOOD AND ANIMAL WASTE COMPOSTING TECHNOLOGY--A NATIONAL OUTREACH/
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER INITIATIVE
New ``in-vessel'' composting technology has been developed at Texas
A&M University-Commerce that will rapidly decompose, stabilize and
sanitize food residuals, animal wastes and animal mortalities. Funding
of this three-year initiative will (1) provide demonstration and
implementation programs in strategic, visible national production
centers, (2) facilitate and coordinate linkages between waste stream
generators and end product users, and (3) focus efforts of the existing
Center for Rural Water Studies toward value-added processing and
utilization of noxious food and animal wastes. Texas A&M University-
Commerce requests funding for this project at $1,000,000 for fiscal
year 2001.
REDUCING AMMONIA EMISSIONS FROM FEEDLOTS
Ammonia emitted from feedlot surfaces combines with combustion
byproducts to produce minute particulate matter (dust) that is of
significant environmental and health concern to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The purpose of this initiative
is to develop scientific and engineering methods for reducing ammonia
emissions from feedlots and thereby reducing health and environmental
problems. West Texas A&M University requests funding for this project
at $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2001.
FOOD SAFETY AND WATER QUALITY
Reducing levels of food-safety-related-pathogens in live animals is
a potential means of increasing food safety. The purpose of this
initiative is to characterize the role of water as a vehicle for food-
safety-related-pathogens in feedlot cattle in the Texas High Plains.
West Texas A&M University requests funding for this project at
$1,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE U.S. APPLE ASSOCIATION
The U.S. Apple Association (USApple) 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.
USApple is the national trade association representing all segments
of the apple industry. Members include 36 state apple associations
representing the 9,000 apple growers throughout the country as well as
more than 450 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)
USApple strongly supports increasing the annual appropriation for
MAP from $90 million to $200 million.
All segments of the U.S. apple industry benefit directly from the
use of export promotion funds, which increase export demand. In fiscal
year 1999, the apple industry received $3 million in MAP export-
development funds. These funds are matched by grower funds, and are
used to promote apples in more than 20 countries throughout the world.
Since 1987, when the apple industry first utilized MAP funds, apple
exports have increased by 88 percent.
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 (FOPA) APPROPRIATIONS
USApple strongly supports full funding for the following programs
intended to facilitate fair FQPA implementation, and to offset its
anticipated negative impact on apple growers.
Specifically, USApple supports the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
following budget requests.
--$14 million for the Pesticide Data Program, administered by the
Agricultural Marketing Service;
--$3.2 million for the National Agricultural Statistics Service
pesticide-usage surveys;
--$2.6 million for the Office of Pest Management Policy administered
by the Agricultural Research Service;
--$12.2 million for the Integrated Pest Management Research Grant
Program administered by the Cooperative State Research,
Extension and Education Service (CSREES);
--$18 million for the Pesticide Impact Assessment Program, Crops at
Risk and Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Program also
administered by CSREES.
(ARS) TEMPERATE FRUIT FLY RESEARCH POSITION--YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
USApple requests the appropriation of $300,000 to fill a critical
position at the USDA-ARS laboratory in Yakima, Washington to conduct
research of temperate fruit flies, a major pest of apples.
FQPA implementation is expected to significantly reduce 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. Research is critically needed
to develop alternative pest controls should growers lose access to
presently-available crop protection tools as a result of FQPA
implementation.
Congress appropriated $300,000 last fiscal year for this critical
position. We request that the committee appropriates $300,000 for this
position in fiscal year 2001.
(ARS) POST HARVEST QUALITY RESEARCH POSITION--EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN
USApple requests that the committee direct USDA to provide
continued funding for postharvest quality research at the ARS
laboratory in East Lansing, Michigan.
This facility is conducting research that is critical to the future
economic recovery of the apple industry. Using a series of new sensing
technologies, researchers at the East Lansing facility are developing
techniques that would allow apple packers to measure the sugar content
and firmness of each apple before it is shipped to consumers. Research
has shown that consumers will increase purchases of high quality
products that consistently meet their expectations. We believe
consumers will eat more apples if this technology is fully developed
and employed, by our industry.
However, the administration is proposing to terminate the East
Lansing research program effective Sept. 30, 2000. We request that the
committee direct USDA to continue funding for this critical research.
Thank you for this opportunity to present this testimony on behalf
of USApple and the U.S. apple industry.
______
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 hardship, cost of money, Rural Telephone Bank
and loan guarantee programs in fiscal year 2001 in the same amount as
loan levels specified in the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture
Appropriations Act which are the same levels as those requested in the
President's budget for fiscal year 2001. Also supporting an extension
of the language removing the 7 percent interest rate cap on cost of
money loans. Also supporting continuation of the restriction on the
retirement of class A Rural Telephone Bank stock in fiscal year 2001 at
the level contained in the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture Appropriations
Act and an extension of the prohibition against the transfer of Rural
Telephone Bank funds to the general fund. Supporting funding in the
amount of $25 million in loan and grant authority designated for
distance learning and telemedicine purposes. Also supporting $2 million
in direct loans and grants for a pilot program to finance broadband
transmission and local dial up Internet service in rural areas as
requested in the President's budget. Opposing the President's budget
proposal to transfer funds from the unobligated balances of the
liquidating account of the Rural Telephone Bank for the Bank's
administrative expenses and loan subsidy costs.
The United States Telecom Association (USTA) represents over 1,000
local telephone companies that provide over 95 percent of the access
lines in the United States. USTA members range from large public-held
corporations to small family-owned companies as well as cooperatives
owned by their customers. I am Roy Neel, President and CEO of USTA. 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 in order
to maintain 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 has never been greater for the technology employed by RUS
borrower rural telecommunications companies to continue to be
modernized. 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 in addition to new electronics being
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 these 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 not an inexpensive 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
economic 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 the
business, school or clinic 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 provides needed incentives to help 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 benefits from
the federal government to flow to rural telephone customers, the true
beneficiaries of the RUS program. In fact, the GAO recently observed in
a Congressional hearing that if there were no RUS telecommunications
program, today's Congress would invent one. The government's
contribution is leveraged by the equity, technical expertise and
dedication of local telecommunications companies.
IMPACT OF CREDIT REFORM ON THE RURAL TELEPHONE BANK
Contrary to the intent of Congress, the interpretation of credit
reform by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has significantly
affected the operation of the Rural Telephone Bank (RTB). One of the
most damaging impacts of OMB's interpretation of the credit reform law
is to essentially cleave the RTB into two banks--a liquidating account
bank which is responsible for pre-credit reform loans, and a financing
account bank which is responsible for post credit reform loans. USTA
has protested this arrangement since it began, since it prevents the
relending of borrower repayments to fund new loans in direct
contravention of Sec. 409 of the Bank's enabling act. This, in turn,
forces the RTB to borrow unnecessarily from the Treasury to fund new
loans. It also permits funds to build up in the liquidating account
that were generated by GAO-documented interest rate overcharges,
instead of those funds being returned through relending to the same
universe of borrowers that initially generated them.
In the fiscal year 2001 budget proposal, the Administration
proposes, despite its recognition that these are equity funds belonging
to stockholders, to take monies from the liquidating account and fund
the loan subsidy for new loans as well as the RUS administrative
expenses allocated to the RTB. This is in direct conflict with an
existing provision of law, Sec. 403(b) of the Rural Telephone Bank Act
(Public Law 92-12). That provision states ``. . . in order to perform
its responsibilities under this title, the telephone bank may partially
or jointly utilize the facilities and the services of employees of the
Rural Electrification Administration or of any other agency of the
Department of Agriculture, without cost to the telephone bank''.
(Emphasis added)
Instead of using the repayments into the liquidating account to
fund the expenses of the RTB (contrary to the Rural Electrification
Act) or to fund the loan subsidy, neither of which would result in any
budget savings, OMB should adhere to Sec. 409 of the Rural
Electrification Act and allow those repayments to be used to fund new
RTB loans. It is ironic that in the same budget proposal that purports
to have the RTB act more like a private bank, OMB continues to maintain
the artificial split of the bank's resources which prevents it from
acting as would a private bank--relending repayments.
RUS TELEPHONE PROGRAM PROCEDURES
Under the leadership of Acting RUS Administrator Chris McLean and
Assistant Administrator for Telephone, Roberta Purcell, significant
steps have been made in streamlining the policies and procedures of the
RUS telecommunications loan program. RUS should be commended for the
progress it has made and continue to reduce regulation and improve
service delivery, within the context of the government's interest in
security for these rural telecommunications infrastructure improvement
loans.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Continuation of the loan levels and necessary associated subsidy
amounts for the RUS telephone loan programs that were recommended by
this committee and signed into law for fiscal year 2000 would maintain
our members' ability to serve the nation's telecommunications needs,
maintain universal service and bring advanced telecommunications
services to rural America.
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, adequate subsidy would not be available 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
2001.
The restriction on the retirement of the amount of class A stock by
the Rural Telephone Bank, adopted in fiscal 1997, should be continued.
The Bank is currently retiring Class A stock in an orderly, measured
manner as current law requires. This should continue. 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 those funds into the general fund.
Recommended Loan Levels.
USTA recommends telephone loan program loan levels for fiscal year
2001 as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
RUS Insured Hardship Loans (5 percent)............................ $75
RUS Insured Cost-of-Money Loans................................... 300
Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) Loans.................................. 175
Loan Guarantees................................................... 120
______
Total....................................................... 670
Distance Learning and Telemedicine
USTA strongly supports the loan and grant proposal and recommends
its funding for fiscal year 2001 at the levels proposed in the
Administration's budget submission, that is, $25 million for loans and
grants. This program is a perfect complement to the traditional RUS
telecommunications loan programs. For distance learning and
telemedicine to become a reality, schools and hospitals need training
and equipment. Similarly, local telecommunications companies need
modern infrastructure to connect these facilities to the
telecommunications network.
Even though our members do not benefit directly, USTA also supports
the $2 million requested in the President's budget for a pilot program
of 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 service, facilities and
prices for telephone service as those living in more densely populated,
lower cost areas. As we move into the Information Age, in which
increases in productivity, economic development, education and medicine
can greatly benefit from the tremendous potential of the Internet, it
is a continuation of the historic of the historic mission of RUS to
support the extension of vital new services to rural America.
CONCLUSION
Our members take pleasure and pride in reminding the Subcommittee
that the RUS telecommunications program continues its perfect record of
no defaults in over a half century of existence. RUS telecommunications
borrowers take deadly 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 Subcommittee will continue to recognize the
importance of assuring a strong and effective RUS Telecommunications
Program through authorization of adequate loan levels.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee: We are pleased to
provide this updated testimony on behalf of the federally-funded
project entitled ``Studies to Reduce the Aflatoxin Problem in Corn''
being carried out in the University of Illinois Crop Sciences
Department by Professors J.M. Widholm and D.G. White, in cooperation
with scientists in other institutions and agencies. Professors White
and Widholm provided the technical information in this report. We wish
to thank you, Mr. Cochran and others on the Committee, for
appropriating $1,249,000 to date for this important research. We
continued to make progress on the project during the past year. We
request an fiscal year 2001 allocation of $180,000 so that we can move
closer to achieving the goals of the project.
THE AFLATOXIN PROBLEM AND OUR STRATEGY TO SOLVE IT
Because of its toxicity and carcinogenicity (causes cancer),
aflatoxin in corn grain is a very serious problem. When the causal
fungus, Aspergillus flavus, is present on the grain, the toxin is often
present also. Aflatoxin problems occur primarily in years and areas of
moisture stress, which means their occurrence is relatively
unpredictable. According to our studies of sixty-five widely grown
commercial corn hybrids, including yellow dent corn, white corn, and
food-grade white and yellow corn, there is little or no resistance to
A. flavus in commonly grown hybrids.
The toxin can form in the maturing grain before harvest and in
stored grain if the moisture levels are too high. Due to the danger
posed by aflatoxin, levels of the toxic compound are closely monitored
in corn grain. If levels of aflatoxin are too high in a given sample,
the grain represented by the sample cannot be sold in interstate
commerce. There is a significant monitoring cost, but it is small
relative to other costs incurred by aflatoxin.
It is estimated that in any given year 5 to 30 percent of the
nation's corn crop experiences severe moisture stress. Direct yield and
quality losses caused by aflatoxin are at least $500 million annually.
That loss accrues to producers. In addition, there are harmful health,
social, and economic effects of aflatoxin when it is present in corn-
based food products. Aflatoxin is one of the most carcinogenic of
naturally occurring compounds. It is very detrimental to the health of
humans or animals that ingest it. For these reasons, it is important to
eliminate aflatoxin from corn grain. That is the mission of this
project.
The strategy of the project is to: (1) through field tests,
identify resistant germplasm in existing collections, (2) using tissue
culture techniques, evaluate and select corn cultures that inhibit A.
flavus growth and/or aflatoxin production, (3) regenerate promising
plants for greenhouse and field evaluation, and (4) using recombinant
DNA techniques, introduce into corn antifungal genes encoding enzymes
such as chitinase and B-glucanase, which may impart resistance to A.
flavus.
PROGRESS REPORT AND LOOK TO THE FUTURE
Previous and current conventional breeding and selection approaches
Since 1991 we screened thousands of corn inbred lines, some of
which already existed in various collections and some of which we
derived from existing material. We discovered an additional 21 lines
since last year for a total of 32 with high levels of resistance to
Aspergillus ear rot and to the production of aflatoxin. We concentrated
on sources of resistance that can be used to improve inbred lines B73
and Mo17, from which most important commercially used inbred lines are
derived.
In inheritance studies, we found that resistance genes have both
additive and dominant affects. It is desirable for resistance genes to
be dominant, so that when resistant and susceptible lines are crossed,
the resulting hybrids will be as resistant as the resistant parent.
Some of the resistance genes discovered are strongly dominant. Much of
the effort was concentrated on inbred line Tex 6, developed at the
University of Illinois by selecting from a southern white corn
population that has high levels of resistance to southern corn leaf
blight. So far, Tex 6 is the best source of resistance produced in this
project.
Tex 6 confers extremely high levels of aflatoxin resistance when
crossed with most of the inbreds that are important in the cornbelt.
Inheritance studies indicate that the resistance in Tex 6 is controlled
by just a few genes, which is very desirable. The fewer the genes
controlling a trait, the easier it is to transfer that trait to
otherwise desirable lines and the faster the trait can be introduced
into widely used material using the common backcrossing approach.
A major milestone was reached when, using Tex 6 and other
experimental lines and the backcrossing approach, we were able to
transfer effective aflatoxin resistance into commercially used inbreds
related to both B73 and Mo17. In 1995, 1996, and 1999 yield trials,
hybrids with some of these new aflatoxin resistance inbreds as one
parent yielded as well as popular commercial hybrids. This breakthrough
paves the way for private firms to introduce resistance to A. flavus
and aflatoxin into their best lines.
The most important development in corn production in recent years
was the introduction of practical high oil corn hybrids by Dupont and
Pfister Hybrids, using materials developed at the University of
Illinois. Unfortunately, high oil hybrids, which are produced by the
so-called TopcrossTM method, are more susceptible to
Aspergillus ear rot and aflatoxin production than are normal hybrids of
the same pedigree with a normal pollinator. Fortunately, high oil top
crosses that involve some of the sources of resistance developed in
this aflatoxin project are equal in resistance to normal resistant
hybrids. Thus, this project is providing the mechanism to assure that
the enormous potential of high oil corn is not reduced by aflatoxin.
Past, current, and future biotechnology research on aflatoxin
Four years ago, we used Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism
(RFLP) markers to identify those chromosome regions associated with
specific genes for aflatoxin resistance. We found that some genes
confer resistance to the fungal disease organism (A. flavus) that
causes ear rot. Some do not confer resistance to the fungal organism
but do inhibit its production of aflatoxin. Some genes do both.
A cooperator, Professor Gary Payne of North Carolina State
University, identified a specific protein from seed of inbred Tex 6
that inhibits aflatoxin production in culture but has very little
effect on growth of the fungus. He identified another protein that
inhibits the growth of the fungus. Apparently there are corn genes that
code for each of these proteins. Among other advantages of this
finding, corn breeders will be able to use marker-assisted selection, a
molecular selection technique, which should greatly speed the process
of screening and selecting high-yield, aflatoxin-resistant lines of
corn.
This year we completed work with inbred line C12, which has good
levels of resistance and also makes a protein that blocks some, but not
all, aflatoxin synthesis. If we can enhance the production of these
blocking proteins and transfer the gene or crenes that code for them
into otherwise productive corn hybrids, several advantages will accrue.
Since fewer genes will have to be transferred, less time will be
required to incorporate desirable aflatoxin-reducing genes into
commercially important hybrids. Also, the fungus will be less likely to
develop ways to defeat the resistance mechanism.
Once these genetically controlled resistance mechanisms are fully
understood, the resistance genes can be transferred to other crops,
such as peanuts, that also have aflatoxin problems. Contrary to some
previous indications, corn lines identified in this project that are
resistant to A. flavus apparently are not consistently resistant to
Fusarium maniliforme, which produces fumonison, another highly toxic
and carcinogenic mycotoxin. There is direct evidence that fumonison
causes cancer and birth defects in humans, not just in laboratory
animals. We believe that some of the emphasis on this project should
shift to fumonison, which may turn out to be a bigger problem than
aflatoxin. Fumonison is produced by a common fungal disease of corn.
Biotechnology breakthrough
We experienced a major breakthrough during early fiscal year 1998
with the successful introduction of antifungal genes bean chitinase and
B-1,3-glucanase into corn cells, both alone and in combination. The
particle gun was used to accomplish this transformation. The
transformed cells were regenerated into plants and were self-pollinated
to obtain plants that are homozygous for the antifungal genes.
Subsequently, we demonstrated by several different methods that the
introduced genes are stable, are passed to progeny in normal
reproduction, and are expressed in seeds of the transformed plants. In
other species, these particular genes are expressed as enzymes that
break down cell walls of invading fungi, thus preventing or reducing
fungal diseases.
During tests in fiscal year 2000, some of the transformed plants
showed resistance, although none were as resistant as Tex 6. We found
that Tex 6, which confers the highest level of natural fungal
resistance, has high levels of natural chitinase in its tissues. This
is a different chitinase, however, than the one we introduced by
recombinant DNA techniques. During the past year, several new plants
were transformed with aflatoxin resistance genes. They are being
evaluated for resistance in the greenhouse and field.
Plans for fiscal year 2001
In fiscal year 2001, we will continue to look for unique aflatoxin
resistance mechanisms in the corn germplasm. We will seek to enhance
natural resistance to A. flavus through conventional breeding
techniques and will conduct further research aimed at increasing the
resistance of high oil corn hybrids to the pathogen. We will also
continue to evaluate plants transformed with resistance genes from corn
and other species. We expect recent advances in the science of
functional genomics to be useful in this project. Among other goals, we
would like to develop additional genetic techniques that simplify the
process of screening the thousands of lines of corn germplasm. Also, it
will be very important to determine if a combination of chitinases
confer greater and more lasting resistance than only one.
Cooperation
We continue to have good cooperation with other institutions and
USDA-ARS. Several sources of resistance we discovered and several
resistant lines derived from them were shown to be resistant in field
studies conducted by cooperators in Mississippi and south Texas.
Professor Gary Payne of North Carolina State University continues to
make valuable contributions to the project. Several private firms have
shown interest in our aflatoxin resistant lines. So far, they have just
been observing the material and comparing it with materials they
already have. Reports on the new material are generally positive.
Progress in moving the resistance genes to commercial lines is
inhibited by a legal problem that confronts those who market seed.
Increasingly, growers are inclined to sue companies when plants grown
from seeds that are advertised as resistant to a disease have some
level of damage. There is still enough uncertainty and variability with
aflatoxin resistance genes that companies are reluctant to advertise
the resistance trait. If companies cannot advertise the trait, they
cannot differentiate their product from that of competitors. If they
cannot differentiate their product, they cannot recover the costs of
research required to introduce the trait. To the extent we can develop
stable and predictable aflatoxin resistance in this project, we can
help to overcome the barriers to adoption of an important technology.
SUMMARY
We believe this project is making excellent progress toward the
desired outcome of reducing or eliminating aflatoxin as a serious
problem in corn production and use. To summarize project results to
date, we identified several corn lines that are resistant to the
organism (Aspergillus flavus) that causes ear rot and produces
aflatoxin. We also discovered lines that inhibit aflatoxin production
without inhibiting fungal growth. This increases the possibility of
inducing aflatoxin resistance that does not decrease with time.
We learned how aflatoxin resistance is inherited when crosses are
made. We have sources of resistance that are effective when used in
either the northern or southern corn belt. We developed practical
tissue culture tests and DNA analysis techniques to identify resistant
germplasm. We found that high oil corn hybrids are more susceptible to
aflatoxin-producing organisms than normal hybrids, but that resistance
sources developed in this project can be used to produce resistant high
oil corn. The project continues to generate important papers in
scientific journals. The papers provide valuable information on both
practical and basic science issues associated with aflatoxin.
In a landmark achievement, we introduced antifungal genes bean
chitinase and B-1,3-gluconase from other organisms into corn cells and
successfully regenerated plants that have these genes. We found that
the introduced genes are stable, passed to progeny during normal
reproduction, and expressed in seeds. We still need to screen more
germplasin for resistance sources. Natural resistance genes tend to
work for a while and then become less effective as the pests evolve new
virulence mechanisms. We still have to broaden the base of inbred lines
that will be used to introduce aflatoxin resistance into commercial
varieties grown in the major corn growing regions of the nation.
Our goal is to insert new resistance genes that can be moved
rapidly into commercially used inbreds and that are effective in
reducing and eliminating other mycotoxins as well.
REQUEST
We respectfully request an allocation of $180,000 in federal funds
for fiscal year 2001 to continue this important project. This amount
will allow us to maintain the momentum and productivity of this
innovative afloatoxin research program and capitalize on the progress
made to date.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee:
Request
We request $3.5 million to create a unique integrated animal waste
and odor management research program (AWORP). This program will focus
on technology for reducing, modifying, recycling, and utilizing waste
streams from livestock production and eliminating associated air,
water, and soil quality problems.
Need
The AWORP is essential if the U.S. is to:
--Sustain economically, socially, and environmentally viable
livestock production operations in the central U.S.
--Capture value added to feed grains by livestock production
--Compete effectively in vast emerging markets for animal protein
products,
--Recover and recycle nutrients used in production of feed grains,
principally corn and soybeans that are fed to livestock
--Provide healthy working conditions for swine industry workers
--Preserve safe and attractive environments in the vicinity of U.S.
livestock operations, and
--Provide adequate protein at reasonable prices for U.S. citizenry
and other consumers around the world.
Background
Livestock production in the U.S. permits consumers around the world
to enrich their diets with high quality protein in many forms. Adequate
levels of animal protein characterize healthy populations in affluent
nations. Inadequate levels are characteristic of poor, undeveloped
nations and unhealthy people.
Currently, livestock production in the U.S. is threatened by fears
concerning its environmental impact. Aerial emissions such as odor,
particulates, and gases from livestock operations are already major
concerns. A new area of concern is biological emissions, including
microorganisms, their associated toxins, and ammonia. These emissions
are potentially detrimental to the health and wellbeing of humans and
animals who breathe or otherwise ingest them. Workers and animals
within livestock production facilities are most likely to be affected.
The nutrients in animal wastes are valuable if they can be retained
in production animals or recycled through crop and natural ecosystems.
It is very undesirable, from health, aesthetic, environmental, and
economic standpoints, for nutrients to end up in rivers, lakes, or
aquifers that provide water for humans or animals.
Environmental problems related to livestock production are
solvable. However, the complex interrelationships among variables
influencing nutrient/contaminant production and flow through the system
dictate that several factors must be managed simultaneously, in an
integrated systems approach.
Therefore, to improve waste and odor management, these factors must
be researched simultaneously, using a systems research approach.
Existing research programs tend to focus on only one factor at a time
and do not reflect conditions caused by multifactor interactions in
complex livestock/cropping systems. AWORP will be conducted within a
research infrastructure and with research protocols that correct
deficiencies in present animal waste research programs and facilities.
Objectives
AWORP will produce practical technology and information that
enables livestock producers to: reduce production of waste and odor in
livestock operations; reduce waste and odor emissions from production
facilities, reduce indoor levels of waste and odor components that
cause human and animal health problems, rapidly and efficiently collect
animal manure, treat manure to preserve plant nutrients and prepare for
safe utilization, recycle manure, its constituent nutrients, and water
in economically, socially, and environmentally acceptable ways, improve
health, safety, and working conditions for livestock production
workers, and make livestock production compatible with neighboring
individuals and communities.
Features
AWORP will utilize a flexible array of integrated components
required for a systems approach to waste and odor research:
--Pilot-scale swine and cattle production facilities for
investigating the interactive effects of facilities design and
operation, dietary and health management practices, and animal
management techniques on manure and nutrient output and
efficiency of manure collection.
--Pilot-scale manure handling, processing, and storage capabilities
to evaluate a wide range of current and emerging technologies
for waste management, nutrient preservation, emissions control,
and odor elimination.
--Well instrumented fields for use in comparing strategies for
capturing the nutrient output from livestock systems and in
measuring the short- and long-term effects of manure
applications on soil, water, and air quality.
Location and alliances
AWORP will be headquartered at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). It will be a powerful mechanism for resolving
critically important livestock waste and odor problems and an important
contribution to a huge national effort involving state, federal, and
private cooperation and investment.
Among several other related assets, the UIUC currently has a large,
multidisciplinary research program on swine odor and waste management,
which is funded at over $1 million per year in state and private funds
overseen by the Council on Food and Agriculture Research (C-FAR). This
C-FAR Strategic Research Initiative (SRI) is characterized by an
unprecedented level of stakeholder involvement in priority setting,
funding, and accountability.
The initiative includes extensive atmospheric measurements,
atmospheric chemistry studies, and studies of human health effects in
cooperation with the Illinois Natural History Survey, Department of
Atmospheric Sciences, and other units at the University of Illinois and
with the National Farm Medicine Center in Marshfield, WI, which has an
Animal Environmental Physiology Laboratory (AEPL) with experience in
measuring ammonia and particulate emissions from livestock facilities.
Budget and Summary
We request $3.5 million in federal funds to mount AWORP. These
funds, complemented by significant state and private investments, will
be used to staff, equip, house, and operate AWORP, and launch and
sustain its projects. The University of Illinois will contribute the
core staff (estimated cost, $300,000 annually) and a strategically
located field site (estimated value, $150,000). The University will
operate and maintain AWORP facilities (estimated cost, $500,000
annually).
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, and Related Agencies subcommittee:
We request that $4 million in federal funds be appropriated in
fiscal year 2001 to construct a state-of-the-art greenhouse facility at
the University of Illinois. Detailed planning is underway, supported by
the $400,000 which was appropriated in fiscal year 2000. We thank you
and the Subcommittee for your past support. This facility will support
research associated with the Maize (corn) Genetics Stocks Collection
and the National Soybean Germplasm Collection. These collections are
maintained at the University of Illinois by the United States
Department of Agriculture--Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS). As
a partner in this endeavor, the University of Illinois agrees to
provide and prepare the site, provide utility connections, and operate
and maintain the facility in support of the collections and for related
research programs.
NEED
Currently, University of Illinois greenhouses are used to support
the collections, but they are so heavily used by both state and federal
scientists that not enough space is available to support the
collections adequately, nor is the space designed properly for support
of the collections. The new greenhouse facility will significantly
enhance the rate at which state and USDA scientists can identify and
evaluate useful plant genes and incorporate them into new and improved
plant varieties, tailored to the needs and opportunities of American
agriculture.
To make effective use of conventional breeding and selection
techniques and powerful new biotechnology approaches, scientists need
excellent greenhouse facilities. Properly designed and efficiently
operated greenhouses permit scientists to grow and maintain plants year
round regardless of weather; perform experiments and evaluations
requiring extraordinary levels of environmental control; and protect
and reproduce valuable plants that are too fragile to survive in the
natural environment. Genetically engineered plants being regenerated
from single cells or small pieces of tissue are often fragile and need
the protection of growth chambers and greenhouses.
The Maize Genetics Stocks Collection and the National Soybean
Germplasm Collection are unique and extremely valuable collections.
Scientists all over the world request samples from among more than
70,000 lines of corn maintained in the Maize Collection. They use these
samples to study corn genetics and basic molecular genetics. Likewise,
all soybean breeders, both private and public, can draw on 18,000 lines
of soybeans in the National Soybean Germplasm Collection for materials
to serve as sources of genes that impart new and improved
characteristics to soybeans.
Through negotiations spearheaded and financed by the Illinois and
Iowa Agricultural Experiment Stations, Illinois and Iowa soybean
checkoff boards, and USDA-ARS, the soybean collection has recently been
enriched with over 2,000 new lines of soybeans from the genriplasm
collection of the People's Republic of China, which maintains the
largest collection in the world. This expansion of the collection will
generate an even greater need for greenhouse space. The contributions
from China are scheduled to continue at the rate of 500 new lines or
more every two years. Evaluations to date indicate that there are many
important quality and disease-resistance genes in the Chinese material
that are not found in material already in the U.S. collection.
The corn and soybean collections are the repositories for quantity
and quality characteristics that will characterize and sustain the U.S.
corn and soybean industries into the future. The future of these
industries is, indeed, written in genetic code. The collections are
unique in the nation and are absolutely essential to continued
improvement of these two important crop species. The scientists
directly associated with the collections are constantly collecting,
classifying, evaluating, multiplying, and distributing new materials.
In addition they continue to maintain and evaluate the materials
already in the collection. The biotechnology revolution is providing
many powerful new techniques for evaluating the collection and is
stimulating scientists to use the collections much more than before.
From time to time, because seed in the collections will only remain
viable for five to ten years in storage, these materials must be grown
to produce new seed. Many of the materials are not adapted to the
outdoor environment of Illinois or they are too valuable to risk losing
them to weather or other unpredictable events in the field. Thus
greenhouses are essential to the maintenance of the collections. They
are also essential to the performance of many other kinds of
experiments involved in corn and soybean genetic improvement.
The work of evaluating and using the collections continues to be a
major area of cooperation between the USDA-ARS and the University of
Illinois. While samples are available to scientists all over the world,
University of Illinois scientists and graduate students and their
genetics and plant breeding programs benefit considerably from their
proximity to the collections and their direct access to the USDA-ARS
people who maintain the collections. USDA-ARS scientists, in turn,
benefit greatly from being located in this great institution, with its
vast and diverse physical and intellectual resources.
To illustrate the value of the University/USDA relationship, a
Korean soybean land race obtained in an AID-financed University program
and placed in the National Soybean Germplasm Collection, was discovered
by a University of Illinois scientist to be the only line in the
collection, perhaps the only soybean line in the world, that lacks the
Kunitz trypsin inhibitor, which must be removed from soybeans by
processing in order for them to be useful. The resulting introduction
of Kunitz-free soybeans by the University and USDA-ARS is a very
important contribution to the industry.
IMPLEMENTING THE PROJECT
The proposed greenhouse complex will be created by constructing
four greenhouse bays adjacent to and integrated with the Turner Hall
greenhouse complex at the University of Illinois. The bays will be
attached to the Turner Hall greenhouse service corridor, thus providing
ready access to the rest of a very large greenhouse complex, its
basement, and several adjoining laboratory and office buildings of the
University of Illinois College of Agriculture, Consumer, and
Environmental Sciences, including facilities in which the contingent of
USDA-ARS scientists are housed.
The four greenhouse bays will provide 10,000 net assignable square
feet (nasf) of modern standard greenhouse space. This will meet current
and anticipated greenhouse space needs for maintaining and expanding
the collections. Basement space under these greenhouse sections will be
used for additional cold storage for the Maize Genetics Stocks
Collection, for laboratory space to support the nematology research
program, and for unfinished space for future expansion as program needs
develop.
The integration of the facility with the existing greenhouse
facilities will provide significant economies of scale and scope,
simplify connection to existing utilities, and facilitate sharing of
greenhouse equipment and support services.
SUMMARY AND BUDGET
We request $4.0 million in federal funds in fiscal year 2001 to
offset the costs of constructing the proposed greenhouse complex. As a
partner in this nationally important effort, the University of Illinois
agrees to provide land and utility connections, prepare the site, and
pay the cost of operating and maintaining the facility henceforth. Site
preparation and utility connections are estimated to cost $200,000.
Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated at $100,000.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LOVELACE RESPIRATORY RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND
THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
Mr. Chairman and Member of the Subcommittee: We appreciate the
opportunity to present jointly our testimony on behalf of the Lovelace
Respiratory Research Institute (LRRI) in New Mexico and the University
of Miami School of Medicine (UMSM) in Florida for our proposed Minority
Health Tobacco Research Center (MHTRC).
INTRODUCTION
Nicotine is a drug. It is a highly addictive drug that is
unregulated. It is also a drug that appears to have profound inhibitory
effects on the mammalian immune system. The delivery system of choice
for this drug is the cigarette. There is no doubt that the use of
tobacco products causes untold human injury and suffering. What is less
well studied is the effect of secondary smoke (and by inference the
delivery of nicotine to non-smokers) on the health of family members
and co-workers of addicted users of these products. We propose the
establishment of a center designed to study the physiology and
behavioral medicine of secondary smoke combining the unique
capabilities of two leading complementary research institutions, the
University of Miami School of Medicine and its Drug Abuse Research
Center in Florida and the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute in
New Mexico.
Extensive experience in health research at UMSM in minority
substance abuse and minority health will be linked to the world class
physiology, cell and molecular biology and toxicology expertise present
at LRRI to model the role of secondary smoke on the biology of the
individual using cellular and rodent models followed by studies of
family members of smokers. Medical and behavioral interventions will
then be developed based on the resulting data.
Although prohibited from regulating tobacco products as it does
other drugs by court action, the FDA does have an obligation to study
the effects of these drugs on the public health of the nation. By
supporting the Minority Health Tobacco Research Center, the FDA will be
contributing to the knowledge base of the scientific community on the
effect of secondary smoke and low dose nicotine exposure on minority
health.
THE NEED FOR THE MINORITY HEALTH TOBACCO RESEARCH CENTER
The MHTRC as a joint project will be devoted to the reduction of
health risks associated with addiction to tobacco and other harmful
substances. Approximately 20 percent of all deaths are associated with
tobacco smoking. Tobacco kills more people than murder, AIDS, suicide,
illicit drug use and automobile accidents combined. The medical
consequences of tobacco addition include the three leading causes of
death: cardiovascular disease, cancer and cerebrovascular disease. Its
related medical costs are astronomical. For example, in Florida in
1996, tobacco-related Medicaid payouts were estimated to be $264
million and $365 million.
Tragically, the use of tobacco is also the most preventable cause
of disease and death. We now know that nicotine is at least as
addictive as cocaine or heroin. Recent studies even suggest that
nicotine interacts with other drugs of abuse, that it reinforces
craving and increases intake of cocaine and other drugs. However,
nicotine is a special case of addition because tobacco is legally sold
and its use is not prohibited among adults. In spite of the evidence
that nicotine is an addictive drug, which affects the brain in the same
way that illicit substances such as opiates and cocaine do, nicotine
dependence has not been considered substance abuse.
The need to focus on the minority population is particularly
significant given the underutilization of the health system by the
population. This disturbing fact is documented in a recent study
produced by the Commonwealth Fund and published on February 18, 2000.
The report discovered that Hispanics account for an alarming one-
quarter of the nation's 44 million uninsured people. Hispanics are
twice as likely as the general population to go without coverage. The
number of uninsured Hispanics more than doubled to 11.2 million from
1987 to 1998. ([email protected])
LRRI AND UMSM ARE UNIQUELY QUALIFIED TO ADDRESS TOBACCO AND HARMFUL
SUBSTANCE ADDICTION
UMSM researchers have significant expertise and experience in many
relevant areas including: substance abuse, evaluation research,
community research, behavioral medicine, disease prevention, treatment
of tobacco-related disease, basic science research, epidemiology, and
public health. The University's Tobacco Research Evaluation and
Coordinating Center (RECC) has been responsible for the evaluation of
Florida's Tobacco Pilot Program. Other strengths in the area of
biomedical research and treatment include pediatric oncology and the
Bachelor Children's Research Center, the Pediatric Environmental
Respiratory Center, as well as the proposed Minority Health Tobacco
Research Center (MHTRC)
LRRI has undertaken some of the leading studies of animal models of
smoking and the role of nicotine in immune function. It is one of the
few research organizations capable of undertaking complex inhalation
exposure protocols with appropriate animal models that predict human
physiological responses. LRRI will undertake experimental protocols
investigating the role of second hand smoke on neonates and other
adults. These models determine the precise immunological defects that
result from these exposures. This data will then be compared to the
cellular immune function of newborns, older children, and family
members of minority subjects in Miami and New Mexico.
FOCUS ON MINORITY POPULATIONS
The proposed MHTRC will be devoted to the study of unrecognized
health risks associated with addiction to tobacco products,
predominantly in minority populations. This group may be uniquely
susceptible to immune suppression, increased fetal HIV transmission,
increased respiratory inflammation and infection, synergistic negative
health effects with other abused substances and impaired immunological
function of non-smoking family members exposed at home or in urtero.
The MHTRC will address the culturally relevant behaviors that
underlie tobacco use in human populations. The importance of the MHTRC
lies in its bridging the use of animal models to the study of disease
in people and the subsequent formulation and testing of medical and
behavioral interventions to improve or eliminate the negative health
consequences associated with tobacco use. Of further interest is the
opportunity to compare two different Hispanic populations that differ
in genetics and cultural characteristics (Mexican and Hispanic in New
Mexico and Cuban in Florida) as well as characterizing African-American
and Caucasian populations. Creating the MHTRC represents a unique
opportunity to build upon the rich diversity of Florida's population,
the commitment of the UMSM to the community and its experience with
behavioral intervention, particularly related to tobacco use and
substance abuse. Florida is an ideal location for the proposed MHTRC,
being a bellwether state for social, demographic and epidemiological
changes that the rest of the nation is currently facing or will face in
the near future. Our extensive experience working with traditionally
hard-to-reach populations such as minority substance abuser will ensure
that the interventions developed will be culturally and linguistically
appropriate and acceptable. UMSM also has the means for rapid
dissemination of effective prevention and intervention within the
minority communities through an already developed community health care
coalition.
The goals of the MHTRC are to:
--Identify risk behaviors which lead to tobacco use and substance
abuse.
--Reduce the incidence and prevalence of tobacco use and that of
other addictive substances.
--Reduce the development of and suffering from disease associated
with tobacco and other addictive substances through research
and interventions in the basic sciences, clinical medicine and
epidemiological research.
--Reduce exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.
--Develop, test and apply science-based community interventions to
achieve these goals. We know that intervention with effective
prenatal programs saves a tremendous amount of money that
otherwise would be spent on healthcare after birth. The same
can be said for early detection of breast cancer through the
screening of over 30,000 medically underserved women which has
demonstrated that early detection and intervention saves
dollars as well as lives. As is true for cancer, we already
possess a great deal of knowledge that could be used to develop
interventions and prevention strategies for addiction to
tobacco and other harmful substances. Applying this knowledge
could effect savings of billions of dollars for state, local
and national governments. Equally important, the quality of
life will be improved for individuals, families and their
communities as well as society at large. It is becoming ever
more apparent that we, as a society, cannot afford to ignore
prevention and early intervention strategies since crises
management is far too costly in terms of quality of life and
unnecessary expenditures of dollars.
By achieving our stated goals, the MHTRC will be in a perfect
position to:
--Improve quality of life,
--Decrease morbidity and mortality,
--Increase survival and,
--Significantly decrease health care expenditures by applying
effective prevention and intervention.
For fiscal year 2001, we seek $4 million ($2 million for each
institution) for this joint New Mexico-Florida initiative by the LRRI
and UMSM. We feel strongly that the unique challenges you face have
never been greater than at this point in history, but there has also
never been a greater opportunity to apply science-based solutions to
the riddle of addiction and greatly improving public health by
eliminating or reducing is negative health consequences.
We hope, Mr. Chairman, that you and your colleagues on the
Subcommittee will find it possible to support this important
initiative.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI
Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I would
like to thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony describing
ongoing research and commercializing efforts of The University of
Southern Mississippi (USM) and the Mississippi Polymer Institute. I am
very grateful to the Subcommittee for its leadership and the continued
support of the Institute and its work. This testimony will include an
update on the progress of the Institute since my testimony of
approximately one year ago. During the past year, our efforts have
focused principally on two commercialization thrusts. One effort
involves our novel, agricultural-based inventions in emulsion
polymerizations, and the other is to produce and commercialize a
viable, formaldehyde-free, soybean derived adhesive for a variety of
composite board materials, i.e., particleboard or oriented strand board
(OSB). During the past year, we have continued to exploit the
opportunities offered by these novel materials and continue to be
optimistic about their commercial fate. I will discuss the two
inventions separately in order to offer more clarity. In the case of
castor, lesquerella, or soy oil, we have designed and synthesized novel
monomers or polymer building blocks that offer state-of-the-art
technology. For instance, the attributes of the technology includes the
ability to produce odor free, solvent free, non-polluting latex
coatings. This represents best-available-technology for the production
of solvent free latex coatings. The success of the technology depends
on the use of agricultural materials as a building block of emulsion
derived polymers offering a new opportunity for ag derived materials as
a raw material in the polymer industry. By contrast, contemporary latex
coatings contain 1,500 grams and more of air pollutants or volatile
organic content (VOC) per gallon. Moreover, this novel technology, if
practiced, would allow governmental regulatory agencies to tighten the
restrictions on volatile organic content (VOC) emissions of applied
coatings without harm to the coatings industry. I intend to share
details of this novel and patented technology with the Environmental
Protection Agency so that they can, if they wish, make an independent
evaluation to confirm its suitability and efficacy. Much of the
fundamental scientific principles regarding its mode of action have
been confirmed, yet additional data must be collected. Specifically, we
have identified one specific area in which it can be used, i.e.,
emulsion polymerizations. However, there are other fields of
specialization where it could be very valuable and these opportunities
must be evaluated. In particular, we believe this technology can be
employed in light industrial and original equipment manufacture (OEM)
industrial coatings as well as architectural coatings, and confirmation
of these concepts is a priority in future work. The second and
critically important objective is to secure manufacturing facilities
for commercial production of the new material(s). Thus, we are
currently in negotiations with parties who have expressed interest in
manufacturing the novel ag based monomer(s). It is imperative that a
manufacturing facility be secured during the 1999-2000 period if this
technology is to be successful. For instance, we have provided samples
to our industrial partners from samples prepared in our laboratory.
However, requests for the novel material are far too great to continue
the practice of laboratory synthesis and thus we must move to an
industrial type synthesis. In fact, one industrial client has expressed
interest in placing orders for the monomer in the third or fourth
quarter of 2000.
Furthermore, the uniqueness of this technology has been confirmed
in industry, and at least one participating polymer manufacturing firm
is sampling polymers manufactured via this novel technology. Therefore,
we believe that the time when industrial firms will seek production
quantities of the novel monomer is drawing closer, and we must be
prepared to meet their needs. This is indeed an exciting time as we see
the fruition of your support, and our efforts coming to the conclusion
we both desire--the commercial production and sale of novel ag based
materials to the polymer industry.
In yet another of our novel ag based technologies, we have
developed formaldehyde-free adhesives for use in the composites
industry, specifically for particleboard and oriented strand board. The
new adhesives are composed of more than 98 percent agricultural
products and are comparable in properties with traditional formaldehyde
adhesives. Formaldehyde emissions are regulated as formaldehyde is
considered a potential cancer producing agent. Consequently, there is a
move afoot to remove formaldehyde from articles of commerce.
In 1983, the Mississippi Legislature authorized the Polymer
Institute at USM to work closely with emerging industries and other
existing polymer-related industries to assist with research, problem-
solving, and commercializing efforts. During the past year, seventeen
new polymer-related industries have located in Mississippi. In
particular, during the past four years Sunbeam-Oster, Dickten and
Masch, Wellman, and Kohler have constructed facilities approaching a
cost of $1.4 billion and each has commented on polymer science and
engineering as a significant factor in their decision to locate near to
The University of Southern Mississippi and the Mississippi Polymer
Institute.
The Institute provides industry and government with applied or
focused research, development support, and other commercializing
assistance. This effort complements existing strong ties with industry
and government involving exchange of information and improved
employment opportunities for USM graduates. Most importantly, through
basic and applied research coupled with developmental and
commercializing efforts of the Institute, the Department of Polymer
Science continues to address national needs of high priority.
The focus of my work is commercialization of alternative
agricultural crops in the polymer industry. This approach offers an
array of opportunities for agriculture as the polymer industry is the
largest segment of the chemical products industry in the world, and
heretofore has been highly dependent upon petroleum utilization.
However, my efforts are directed to the development of agricultural
derived materials that will improve our nation's environment and reduce
our dependence on imported petroleum. As farm products meet the
industrial needs of the American society, rural America is the
benefactor. Heretofore, this movement to utilize alternative
agricultural products as industrial raw materials has received some
attention but much less than opportunities warrant. Your decisions are
crucial to the accomplishment of these goals as funding from this
Subcommittee has enabled us to implement and maintain an active group
of university-based polymer scientists whose energies are devoted to
commercializing alternative crops. We are most grateful to you for this
support and ask for your continued commitment.
The faculty, the University, and the State of Mississippi are
strongly supportive of the Mississippi Polymer Institute and its close
ties with industry. Most faculty maintain at least one industrial
contract as an important part of extramural research efforts.
Polymers, which include fibers, plastics, composites, coatings,
adhesives, inks, and elastomers, play a key role in the materials
industry. They are used in a wide range of industries including
textiles, aerospace, automotive, packaging, construction, medical
prosthesis, and health care. In the aerospace and automotive
applications, reduced weight and high strength make them increasingly
important as fuel savers. Their non-metallic character and design
potentials support their use for many national defense purposes.
Moreover, select polymers are possible substitutes for so-called
strategic materials, some of which come from potentially unreliable
sources.
As a polymer scientist, I am intrigued by the vast opportunities
offered by American agriculture. As a professor, however, I continue to
be disappointed that few of our science and business students receive
training in the polymer-agricultural discipline as it offers enormous
potential. The University of Southern Mississippi and the Mississippi
Polymer Institute are attempting to make a difference by showing others
what can be accomplished if appropriate time, energy, and resources are
devoted to the understanding of ag based products.
I became involved in the polymer field 36 years ago and since that
time, have watched its evolution where almost each new product
utilization offered the opportunity for many more. Although polymer
science as a discipline has experienced expansion and a degree of
public acceptance, alternative agricultural materials are an under-
utilized national treasure for the polymer industry. Moreover, there is
less acceptance of petroleum derived materials today than ever before
and consequently the timing is ideal for agricultural materials to make
significant inroads as environmentally friendly, biodegradable, and
renewable raw materials. These agricultural materials have always been
available for our use, yet society for many reasons, has not recognized
their potential. The following examples are included and represent
opportunities other than those already described which supports this
tenet:
--A waterborne, waterproofer has been designed and formulated with
the help of several natural products. The material functions as
a waterproofer yet is carried in water. However, after
application to the intended substrate, typically wood or
cementous products, the material becomes hydrophobic and highly
water resistant. We have collected two and one-half years of
exposure data on this product with excellent success. It is
currently being marketed via Southern Chemical Formulators of
Mobile, AL. The distribution of this material has been slowed
as the result of a fire at Southern Chemical Formulators that
destroyed production facilities. We will make additional
contacts with industrial firms this year who would be possible
distributorship candidates.
--A new, multi-functional polymer additive was designed, synthesized,
tested, and submitted to the patent office. The patent office
has approved the issuance of a patent entitled, ``Novel Multi-
Functional Surface Active Agents, Syntheses and Applications
Thereof,'' U.S. patent no. 5,807,922, September 15, 1998. The
product is currently being evaluated by the Hanson Company as a
potential commercial product. It is a highly efficient, multi-
faceted additive that functions as a dispersant, a defoamer, an
adhesion promoter, a gloss enhancer, and corrosion inhibiting
species. It is derived from an agricultural raw material and is
very novel in its performance and applications. We will utilize
this technology in the synthesis of our own emulsion polymers
and test them for property improvements and thus commercial
viability.
--We have exploited the potential of lesquerella, a crop that
produces a triglyceride similar to castor oil. Several high
performance products have been prepared and include polyesters,
stains, foams, pressure sensitive adhesives, and 100 percent
solid ultraviolet (UV) coatings. This technology was
highlighted at the AARC/NASDA meeting in Washington, DC. We are
developing a cooperative relationship with Alcorn State
University, Lorman, MS to grow and thus evaluate the agronomics
of lesquerella as a new crop for Southeastern U.S. region.
--Novel open cell foams have been designed and prepared from
lesquerella and/or castor oil. They are of high quality and can
substitute for foams used extensively in industrial settings.
Moreover, this ag based foam technology will be exploited
during the coming year as a potential weed deterrent and mulch.
The idea is to apply a layer of foam around crops to retard, if
not stop, weed intrusion and their associated competition for
food and water.
U.S. agriculture has made the transition from the farm fields to
the kitchen tables, but America's industrial community continues to be
frightfully slow in adopting ag based industrial materials. Let us
aggressively pursue this opportunity and in doing so:
--Intensify U.S. efforts to commercialize alternative crops and
dramatically reduce atmospheric volatile organic content
emissions. The result will be much cleaner air for all
Americans.
--Reduce U.S. reliance on imported petroleum.
--Maintain a healthy and prosperous farm economy.
--Foster new cooperative opportunities between American farmers and
American industry.
Mr. Chairman, your leadership and support are deeply appreciated by
the entire University of Southern Mississippi community. While I can
greatly appreciate the financial restraints facing your Subcommittee, I
feel confident that further support of the Mississippi Polymer
Institute will continue dividends of increasing commercialization
opportunities of agricultural materials in American industry. Advances
in polymer research are crucial to food, transportation, housing, and
defense industries. Our work has clearly established the value of ag
products as industrial raw materials and we must move it from the
laboratories to the industrial manufacturing sector. Only then can the
U.S. enjoy a cleaner and safer environment which these technologies
offer, as well as new jobs, and expanded opportunities for the U.S.
farmer. We are most grateful for the support you have provided in the
past. The funding you have provided has allowed the laboratory work to
be conducted, yet we are at the crossroads of commercialization and
additional funds are needed to take this technology from the laboratory
to the manufacturing facilities. Moreover, past funding has been
essentially level with some slight increases. Our current circumstance
finds us in dire need of additional resources to take these
technologies to the market place and to continue our developments of
other exciting technologies. Thus, we respectfully request $1.5 million
in federal funding to exploit the potentials of commercializing
alternative agricultural materials and to continue our initiatives.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee for your support
and consideration.
Mr. Chairman, I have included with this testimony written
descriptions of our most advanced technology based on castor and/or
lesquerella oils. I am told that 30,000 acres of castor beans are being
planted in Texas, and I have herein already described our efforts to
accelerate the adoption of lesquerella as a new industrial crop. The
presentations are presented in the ``lay'' and ``technical'' fashion in
an effort to meet the needs of the non-scientist as well as the highly
technical professional, respectively.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN ASSOCIATION
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
organization created 19 years ago by the Governors of Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to serve as a forum for coordinating
the five states' river-related programs and policies and for
collaborating with federal agencies on regional water resource issues.
As such, the UMRBA has an interest in the budget for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's conservation programs and technical
assistance.
Of particular importance to the UMRBA is funding for the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), and
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Taken together, these
three Commodity Credit Corporation-funded programs provide an
invaluable means for the USDA to work with landowners, local
conservation districts, and the states to ensure that agricultural
productivity is maintained while protecting the nation's soil and water
resources. As stewards of some of the nation's most productive
agricultural lands and important water resources, the five states of
the Upper Mississippi River Basin believe these programs are vital.
Strong farmer interest and state support demonstrate the region's
commitment to the objectives of these programs. In 1998, state, local,
and private entities matched every dollar of NRCS investment in the
five states with an additional $0.80.
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget proposal includes a $1.3
billion Farm Conservation Initiative, a combination of new legislative
and funding proposals with important potential implications for the
USDA's core conservation programs. Funding for the CRP would be
increased modestly to $1.742 billion and the CRP acreage cap would be
raised by 3.6 million acres to 40 million acres. The UMRBA would
welcome such an adjustment to the CRP cap and also supports efforts to
ensure that future CRP enrollments target the best opportunities to
improve water quality and habitat values. Only 40,000 acres will remain
next year under the current WRP acreage cap. The UMRBA supports
legislation to increase the cap to permit enrollment of 250,000 acres
per year in the WRP from 2001 to 2005. In order to realize the
potential benefits of such an increase in the acreage cap, it is of
course essential to provide the funds necessary to support additional
enrollments. The Administration has proposed increasing WRP funding to
$286 million in 2001.
The CRP and WRP have been extremely effective in helping Midwest
farmers to protect land and water resources by curtailing production on
some of their most sensitive land. And there are certainly many more
opportunities to make good use of the CRP and WRP in the region.
However, it is also essential to support sound conservation practices
on the far greater amount of land that remains in production. EQIP is
the USDA's largest and most effective means of assisting farmers and
ranchers to implement conservation practices on land currently in
production. The President is proposing legislation to increase the
authorized CCC funding to EQIP by $625 million over five years. Such an
increase would provide significant benefits to our region's farmers and
natural resources. Under the Administration's plan, a portion of these
increased funds would assist animal feedlot operators to implement
conservation practices. Various incidents throughout the country have
clearly demonstrated the need for such assistance, which can help
balance the new dynamics of livestock production with the need to
protect soil and water resources.
The President is also proposing a new, $600 million Conservation
Security Program (CSP), to be administered by the NRCS. The CSP would
provide assistance to farmers and ranchers who implement various
conservation practices. The UMRBA states are keenly aware of the need
for more resources to support practices such as conservation tillage
and buffer strips. However, it is not clear whether additional
resources should be directed to existing programs such as EQIP or to a
newly established CSP.
The UMRBA does remain concerned with the adequacy of funding and
staffing levels in the NRCS' conservation operations account. The
technical assistance funded through conservation operations provides
the foundation for the USDA's voluntary conservation planning. The
Administration has proposed an increase of $86 million in conservation
technical assistance funding for fiscal year 2001. However, a large
part of this increase would be dedicated to specific programs and
initiatives outside of the USDA's core conservation programs. As a
result, NRCS field staff will likely continue to have difficulty
providing the timely, comprehensive technical assistance that farmers
need if they are to participate effectively in the USDA's conservation
programs. A 1998 National Workload Analysis indicated that the NRCS
needed as many as 4,000 employees at the field level in the Midwest. At
the time, actual field staff in the region numbered fewer than 2,500.
The UMRBA urges Congress to ensure that the NRCS has both the staff and
funding necessary to deliver its conservation programs effectively.
The Midwest and indeed much of the nation will face significant
challenges in the future as dams built under the Public Law 534 and
Public Law 566 programs age. More than 200 floodwater dams in the NRCS'
Midwest Region will reach the end of their design life within 10 years.
Many of these structures must be rehabilitated if they are to continue
to function safely and effectively. The UMRBA encourages Congress to
provide USDA with the authority and funding it needs to serve as an
effective federal partner in addressing these needs.
The five states of the UMRBA acknowledge that our region faces
enormous soil and water conservation needs and limited public and
private resources to address those needs. In this context, it is
imperative that NRCS work with the states, conservation districts, and
farmers to identify and target the most pressing problems. Coordination
and communication with the states is particularly critical to success
in addressing the interstate resource challenges faced on the Upper
Mississippi River. Success in addressing such complex, large-scale
issues will not come quickly. It will require long-range thinking and
commitment over time from all levels of government and from farmers.
The states look to both Congress and the Administration to join them in
providing such leadership.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE USA RICE FEDERATION
The U.S.A. Rice Federation wishes to express our opposition to the
recommendations of the Administration for reductions in the
appropriation for fiscal year 2001 for the Department of Agriculture
for two items that are of importance to the rice industry. We are
seeking funding for these two items at last year's levels. In addition,
we support the requested funding levels for the White River Irrigation
Demonstration Project and the Bayou Meto Project.
The U.S.A. Rice Federation is the nation's largest rice
association, representing all segments of the U.S. rice industry. The
Federation's charter members are the U.S.A. Rice Council, U.S. Rice
Producers' Group and the Rice Millers' Association. Through these
organizations, Federation membership encompasses U.S. rice producers
who grow 80 percent of America's rice crop; farmer-owned cooperatives
and privately owned mills comprising virtually all of the U.S. rice
milling industry, with members in Arkansas, California, Florida,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas; and a wide range of allied
businesses in these and other states. The diversity and scope of this
association permits it to provide a view common to all aspects of the
industry, and to the vast majority of its participants.
The first item of concern to the industry relates to the funding of
the Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center at Stuttgart, Arkansas.
This Center is the only one of its kind in the United States. It was
established with the view of making U.S. produced rice more competitive
in the global market through research for improved yields, a superior
grain quality, pest resistance and stress tolerance. It has just
recently commenced operations with emphasis on genome research that
would focus on rice genetics. The results of the genome research would
be of benefit not only for rice but also for other crops as well.
The Administration has proposed a major reduction in funding of
this Center. The Administration has proposed for fiscal year 2001 a
reduction in the current appropriation of $5,336,700 to $4,502,500 by
terminating two projects and reducing the appropriation for rice
research by $382,500 and for aquaculture by $457,700. The reduction for
rice research would seriously impair the genome research efforts of the
Center, and unduly impair the objectives for which the Center was
established.
The other appropriation item on which we wish to comment is the
appropriation for wildlife services operation contained in the budget
for APHIS. The Administration has proposed a cut of $2 million in this
appropriation by reducing the appropriation from $31 million to $29
million in fiscal year 2001. One of the activities carried out by this
appropriation is work on efforts to control blackbird populations which
are a scourge of the rice industry, particularly in Louisiana, and
Texas. The appropriation is used to apply bait that has been treated
with a chemical, DRC 13329, as well as conducting baiting studies and
studies on new chemicals that may be used as repellants for blackbirds.
The appropriation from the Department of Agriculture supplements funds
generated by producers in these states under their rice research and
promotion legislation. The industry depends on this appropriation to
aid in its efforts to control damage to the crops caused by the
tremendous number of blackbirds that descend on the fields each spring.
We also support the requested funding levels of $22.7 million for
the White River Irrigation Demonstration Project and $9.5 million for
the Bayou Meto Project in Arkansas.
We wish to thank you for your help to the rice industry in the past
and encourage you to continue your support for this industry.
Please include this statement in the record of the hearing and make
copies available to the members of the Subcommittee.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE
Mr. Chairman, I am Ronald R. Helinski, Conservation Policy
Specialist for the Wildlife Management Institute. Established in 1911,
the Institute is staffed by professional wildlife scientists and
managers. Its purpose is to promote the restoration and improved
management of wildlife in North America. I am submitting testimony for
the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related
Agencies--Senate Committee on Appropriations for:
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
Conservation Operations-Technical Assistance (TA).--The President's
budget request is for $86.431 million taking into consideration an
increase of FTE's amounting to 1,843. WMI supports additional needed
Technical Assistance (TA) both via funding and through the use of
innovative delivery mechanisms. WMI submits that there are other ways
to deliver TA, primarily through partnerships. Over the past several
years, Congress has emphasized the need for a balanced budget. NRCS
FTE's over that time period have been status quo. During that time,
NRCS had to find new ways to provide services to its constituent base
(landowners, farmers, and ranchers). Through NRCS's innovative spirit,
more partnerships than ever before occurred. They effectively leveraged
monies enabling them to continue to offer services to landowners. These
partnerships bloomed into cooperative ventures with state fish and
wildlife agencies to address needed expertise and assistance with Farm
Bill programs. In many instances through the use of MOA's NRCS match
dollar for dollar with state fish and wildlife organizations to hire
needed FTE's to facilitate fish and wildlife TA to landowners. This
innovation enabled NRCS to: 1) obtain needed expertise where they
lacked it and 2) were able to increase FTE's on the ground providing
needed TA. The continuation of this management style will provide more
actual dollars to landowners via established Farm Bill programs
(financial assistance) without taking away from TA funding.
Partnerships with state fish and wildlife agencies and conservation
NGO's are paying off and should be continued--it provides flexibility
and needed services in a time of fiscal responsibility. An example of
how this process works can be found in the states of: AR, MO, KY, TX,
NC, GA, CO and WY.
With Farm Bill program demand ratios of 3:1 for WRP, 3:1 for WHIP,
2:1 for CRP and 4:1 for EQIP its not just about staffing needs but
financial assistance too. Increased monies are needed to facilitate the
demand. It's a true limiting factor for the demand far exceeds the
available dollars available. With an increase in TA dollars being used
in a partnership effort with state fish and wildlife agencies and/or
conservation NGO's more services will be delivered on the ground thus
meeting constituent demand.
There also is an increasing need to properly evaluate applications
of Farm Bill programs on the ground. The above mentioned partnerships
are a means to an end. Follow up with landowners has been hit or miss
based on NRCS field priorities and current priority workloads. State
fish and wildlife agencies and conservation NGO's would help supplement
on site visits and offer a more umbrella approach to follow up visits.
Properly evaluating implementation of Farm Bill programs on the ground
will reinforce conservation connections and help catch problems in
their early stages, thus saving money in the long run.
Programs-Wetland Reserve Program (WRP).--WMI is in support of
increasing acreage to the 250,000 enrollment level in fiscal year 2001.
With the national ratio of eligible offered acres to enrolled acres
being 5:1 there is a need to expand the popular WRP program to meet
national conservation goals. This program returns long-term benefits to
both farmers and the American public.
Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program (WHIP).--WMI supports an
increase in funding for this very successful program. With a 3:1 demand
to approved contract ratio, $50 million (12.5 for TA/37.5 for financial
assistance) is far below the needed amount to meet constituent desires.
As a result of the zeroing out of this program in fiscal year 2000 the
pent up demand will be high. WMI supports a $100 million allocation
annually for this program. As mentioned above, through the leveraging
of TA funds, more monies can be made available for direct financial
assistance--we recommend $87.5 million for landowners.
Conservation Security Program (CSP).--WMI applauds the recognition
of strengthening conservation efforts on private land. With the focus
on family farms and specific attention to private grazing lands,
orchards, vineyards and other non-program crops, needed niches are now
being addressed. ``Thinking about the land itself as our most valuable
commodity'' is, as stated by Secretary Glickman, necessary for long
term conservation needs. To that end, WMI supports this $600,000
million program with these caveats: (1) by complimenting other Farm
Bill programs CSP will support the coequal status of soil, water, and
wildlife and (2) that evaluation mechanisms be established to monitor
RESULTS from the investment of those monies.
Forest Incentives Program (FIP).--Zeroing out this program is a
mistake. In most cases wildlife has benefitted from landowner use of
available FIP funds. This is especially true when it comes to utilizing
the management technique of forest stand improvement. WMI recommends
that this program allow cost sharing for the use of prescribed fire on
non-industrial, private lands. By doing this you will help encourage
aggressive fuels management as well as assist with the development of
needed understory and successional forest stage development for such
wildlife species as bobwhite quail, woodcock and a variety of other
bird and mammal species. Thus you will be promoting forest health,
reduce unwanted wildfire risk, and improve wildlife habitat. To
accomplish the above WMI recommends funding FIP at a $25 million level.
FARM SERVICES AGENCY
Conservation Program Initiative (CPI).--WMI supports the increase
from 36.4 million to 40 million acres in fiscal year 2001. The
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is a voluntary and incentive-based
program that have turned millions of acres of marginal cropland into
vital wildlife habitat. These programs also help stem soil erosion,
help agricultural producers meet the requirements of a variety of
environmental laws and regulations. CRP also helps producers remain
economically viable in an era of low commodity prices through program
payments and increased opportunity for income from hunting, fishing and
other recreational activities.
We also support the bonuses of $125 million each year in fiscal
year 2001 and 2002 for continuous CRP sign ups.
Supplementary Income Assistance Payments budgeted at 2.464 billion
needs to include conservation compliance as part of the delivery
mechanism to landowners. Accountability for the use of public funds to
constituents concerning improvements to water, soil and wildlife is a
must.
Technical Assistance (TA).--WMI recommends leveraging some of the
$52 million available with state fish and wildlife agencies and
conservation NGO's to assist NRCS with TA delivery to landowners. In
these times of balanced budgets, emphasis has been on streamlining
government. Efficiency and becoming more effective are the rallying
calls of those in Congress. With that in mind, WMI suggests that there
are other ways to deliver TA to this nation's private landowners. We
suggest going the route of developed partnerships with state fish and
wildlife agencies and conservation NGO's. Through the use of MOA's NRCS
can match dollars with the above partners to expand TA as well as offer
more monies to Farm Bill program participants. MOA's currently in
effect in AR, MO, KY, TX, NC, GA, and WY are a model of how such
leveraging can occur.
Wildlife Services, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS).--WMI recommends that the President's Budget for APHIS Wildlife
Services (WS) be increased by $1.0 million from $28.7 million to $29.7
million. This increase should be earmarked for the increased cost of
maintenance and operations of the National Wildlife Research Center.
WMI accepts the President's Budget request (a reduction of $2.7 million
and $190,000 respectively) for the Operations and Aquaculture line
items, provided that program cuts are only made in states that do not
meet a 1:1 cost share match.
The WS program is a complex array of state and local partnerships
that contribute financially to the overall program. These partnerships
cooperate to control wildlife damage to agriculture, aquaculture,
forest, range and other natural resources, and to protect public health
and safety through control of wildlife-borne diseases and wildlife
hazards at airports. The funding and support level should be governed
by the cooperative agreements in place with the respective state
agencies and be subject to the agreed to 50/50 cost share policy.
Providing a no net loss of funding for Methods Development is vital
to continue the ongoing work of finding alternatives to existing
control methods. New technology is the only answer to resolving the
controversies surrounding some of the current control methods. Without
the $1 million increase, the program. would be required to cut research
efforts in order to pay for the increased maintenance for the research
facility.
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE (CSREES)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
The Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) 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, managers,
community decision makers, and the public. This results in significant
benefits to individuals and to the Nation through building and
sustaining a more viable and productive natural resource base and a
competitive and profitable agriculture. Since over two-thirds of our
lands, approximately 1.35 billion acres, are controlled by over 10
million private landowners and managers, it is most appropriate that
the CSREES-Land Grant System, with its grass roots credibility and
delivery system, be adequately funded to translate and deliver
research-based educational programs and new technologies to help the
Nation's private landowners and managers move toward a more sustainable
society. However, in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget, we see
virtually no emphasis on natural resources research and education
directed toward helping these clientele. In short, only about four
percent of CSREES' proposed budget of $972,395,000 supports research
and extension activities pertinent to the nation's forest and range
lands and associated wildlife and fisheries resources. This amount is
infinitesimal and needs to be significantly increased.
PURPOSE
The Institute recommends that the fiscal year 2001 budget for
CSREES should redirect funding to accomplish the following goals:
WMI recommends that the Renewable Resources Extension Act be funded
at a minimum level of $15.0 million in fiscal year 2001.--The RREA
funds, which are apportioned to State Extension Services, effectively
leverage cooperating partnerships at an average of about four to one,
with a focus on the development and dissemination of useful and
practical educational programs to private landowners (rural and urban)
and continuing education of professionals. The increase to $15.0
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 today than ever because of the
fragmentation of ownerships, the diversity of landowners needing
assistance, and the increasing environmental concerns of society about
land use. An increase to $15.0 million would enable the Extension
Service to expand its capability to assist over 500,000 private
landowners annually to improve decision making and management on an
additional 35 million acres while increasing productivity and revenue
by $200 million.
WMI recommends that Smith-Lever 3(b)&(c) funding be increased five
percent to $290,000,000, and that the increase be allocated to the
Natural Resources and Environmental Management (NREM) base program.--
WMI appreciates that Smith-Lever 3(b)&(c) base programs provide ``Block
Grant'' type funds for land grant universities to provide essential
educational outreach based on local need assessments. The requested
increase will enable NREM programs to develop a critical mass of
expertise at the State and local levels to address natural resource and
environmental issues that are directly affecting small landowners and
farmers in both rural and urban communities nationwide. Expanding
Extension public issues education programs on such issues as forest
health, wetlands, endangered species, and human/wildlife interactions,
as well as strengthening programs in urban and community forestry and
environmental education as called for in the 1990 FACT Act is essential
to the sustainability of these critical resources. Such an increase,
targeted appropriately, would help producers better understand and
implement the changes in the 1995 Farm Bill's Conservation Provisions
and those conservation issues that are expected in the next Farm Bill.
Moreover, we are concerned about declining natural resources staff in
CSREES as well as at the Nation's Land Grant Universities including the
predominantly Black and Tribal Institutions.
WMI encourages continuation of close cooperation between State
Cooperative Extension Services and their State Fish and Wildlife
agencies, as well as other appropriate State and Federal agencies and
conservation organizations. Extension 4-H Youth natural resource
program and projects continue to increase with over 1,350,000
youngsters presently enrolled from both urban and rural communities
across the Nation. Increased Smith-Lever funds targeted appropriately
will enable CSREES to carry out its environmental education and NREM
National Strategic Plan obligations nationwide.
WMI recommends restoration of the Rangeland Research Grants
$500,000 budget for fiscal year 2001.--The Institute is disappointed
that the practical and applied problems addressed by the Rangeland
Research Grants (RRG) program were zeroed out in the President's 1998
budget and totally ignored in the fiscal year 1999, 2000, and 2001
budgets. Over one half of the land area of the United States is
rangeland; and elimination of the only federal competitive grants
program for rangelands has serious implications for wildlife,
watersheds, and other natural resources. Modest appropriations for RRG
in the past have supported some of the most important rangeland
research conducted over the past decade, and wildlife issues on
rangelands will present some of the more critical rangeland research
problems over the next decade. This would help increase the
interdisciplinary capacity of research and educational programs to help
landowners improve the adoption of forests and rangelands ecosystem
management and the conservation of biodiversity on an ecoregion level.
WMI recommends that an appropriate portion of the total increased
appropriation for Pest Management should be dedicated to educational
programs for prevention and control of vertebrate pests in urban and
rural communities.--WMI notes significant increases in the President's
budget for Pest Management research and extension programs with no
opportunity for addressing vertebrate pests. Yet, vertebrate pests have
been identified in many States as posing the most significant problems
that agricultural producers and other private landowners and managers
need educational assistance with. The targeting of Pest Management
funds for vertebrate pest research and educational programs would
effectively advance the knowledge and capability of landowners and
managers to significantly reduce the losses caused by these problem
species.
WMI recommends that the Hatch funds be increased eleven percent to
$200,000,000, and McIntire-Stennis funds fourteen percent to
$25,000,000 and, if necessary, the increase be redirected from the
proposed addition to NRI funding.--WMI is pleased that the
Administration proposes an increase in basic research identified under
the National Research Initiative (NRI) as Natural Resources and the
Environment. However, what is proposed in the current version of the
President's Budget does not address natural resource issues that the
Natural Resource Community, the public, and the over 10 million private
landowners are vitally concerned about. The Institute is extremely
disappointed in the Goal 4 ``Greater Harmony between Agriculture and
the Environment'' which is the only one of the 6 CSREES Strategic Goals
that even purports to address natural resources. There is no mention of
research or extension programs to address the erosion of the nation's
natural resource base except that alluded to by the Integrated Research
and Extension Water Quality Program. The others are totally focused on
agriculture production. The nation's agricultural base cannot be
sustained if its natural resource base is not sustained.
SUMMARY
The Wildlife Management Institute, based on the above
considerations, recommends the following for the fiscal year 2001
budget of CSREES:
--The RREA budget be increased to $15.0 million;
--Smith-Lever 3(b)&(c) base program funding be increased to
$290,000,000;
--Rangeland Research grants be restored at $500,000 level;
--A portion of the Pest Management and related increase be targeted
to provide increased research and education programs to address
vertebrate pest prevention and control; and
--McIntire-Stennis and Hatch Act funding be increased to $200,000,000
and $25,000,000 respectively.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Ackerman, Kenneth D., Administrator, Risk Management Agency,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 183
Prepared statement........................................... 234
Ad Hoc Coalition, prepared statement............................. 1051
Alachua County Board of Commissioners, prepared statement........ 1054
American:
Chemical Society, prepared statement......................... 1055
Farm Bureau Federation, prepared statement................... 1056
Federation of Government Employees, prepared statement....... 1059
Honey Producers Association, Inc., prepared statement........ 1065
Indian Higher Education Consortium, prepared statement....... 1066
Rivers, prepared statement................................... 1069
Seed Trade Association, prepared statement................... 1070
Society for Microbiology, prepared statements............1080, 1082
Society for Nutritional Sciences, prepared statement......... 1077
Association of:
American Medical Colleges, prepared statement................ 1084
Research Directors of the Historically Black 1890 Land-Grant
Universities, prepared statement........................... 1085
ASTA Corn and Sorghum Basic Research Committee, prepared
statement...................................................... 1072
Baker, James R., Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration, Department of Agriculture, prepared
statement...................................................... 604
Biotechnology Industry Organization, prepared statement.......... 1087
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from Missouri:
Questions submitted by......................................97, 472
Questions submitted to the Departmental Administration....... 882
Statement of................................................. 8
Bosecker, R. Ronald, Administrator, National Agricultural
Statistics Service, Department of Agriculture, prepared
statement...................................................... 611
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana:
Prepared statements.....................................5, 200, 408
Questions submitted by....................................... 100
Questions submitted to:
Farm Service Agency...................................... 267
Foreign Agricultural Service............................. 373
Risk Management Agency................................... 378
Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia:
Questions submitted by....................................... 568
Questions submitted to:
Farm Service Agency...................................... 274
Foreign Agricultural Service............................. 377
Risk Management Agency................................... 380
Byrd, Robert J., Deputy Commissioner for Management and Systems,
Chief Financial Officer, Food and Drug Administration,
Department of Health and Human Services........................ 383
California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
Coalition, prepared statement.................................. 1088
Chambers, Samuel, Jr., Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service,
Department of Agriculture, prepared statement.................. 591
City of Gainesville, Florida, prepared statement................. 1090
Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports, prepared
statement...................................................... 1091
Cochran, Hon. Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi:
Opening statements......................................1, 183, 383
Prepared statement........................................... 386
Questions on Government Performance and Results Act:
Agricultural Marketing Service........................... 997
Agricultural Research Service............................ 1011
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service............... 1005
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service................................................ 920
Departmental Administration.............................. 1018
Economic Research Service (ERS).......................... 984
Farm Service Agency...................................... 938
Food and Nutrition Service............................... 959
Food Safety and Inspection Service....................... 1037
Foreign Agricultural Service............................. 1043
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.. 989
Hazardous Materials Management Program................... 1026
National Agricultural Statistics Service................. 979
National Appeals Division................................ 993
Natural Resources Conservation Service................... 971
Office of Budget and Program Analysis.................... 926
Office of Communications................................. 950
Office of the Chief Economist............................ 1000
Office of the Chief Financial Officer.................... 932
Office of the Chief Information Officer.................. 1021
Office of the General Counsel............................ 928
Office of the Inspector General.......................... 954
Risk Management Agency................................... 944
Rural Development Service................................ 965
Questions submitted by......................................62, 427
Questions submitted to:
Agricultural Marketing Service........................... 649
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service............... 650
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service................................................ 653
Economic Research Service................................ 883
Farm Service Agency...................................... 266
Food and Nutrition Service............................... 886
Food Safety and Inspection Service....................... 889
Foreign Agricultural Service............................. 277
Office of the Chief Information Officer.................. 895
Risk Management Agency................................... 377
Collins, Keith, Chief Economist, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Agriculture......................................1, 183
Prepared statement........................................... 187
Statement of................................................. 185
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, prepared statement.. 1092
Colorado River Board of California, prepared statement........... 1094
Colorado State University, prepared statement.................... 1096
Cooper, Norman G., Director, National Appeals Division,
Department of Agriculture, prepared statement.................. 615
Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association, prepared statement 1097
Council for Agricultural Research, Extension and Teaching,
prepared statement............................................. 1098
Defenders of Wildlife, prepared statements...................1099, 1100
Dewhurst, Stephen B., Budget Officer, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 1
Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota:
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Questions submitted by....................................... 488
Statements of................................................3, 201
Durbin, Hon. Richard J., U.S. Senator from Illinois:
Prepared statements.........................................10, 204
Questions submitted by....................................... 490
Statements of................................................9, 204
Easter Seals, prepared statement................................. 1102
FDA-NIH Council, prepared statement.............................. 1104
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology,
prepared statement............................................. 1106
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, statement
of............................................................. 48
Florida State University, prepared statement..................... 1109
Friends of Agricultural Research-Beltsville, Inc., prepared
statement...................................................... 1110
Friends of the National Arboretum, prepared statement............ 1112
Fritz, Richard G., General Sales Manager, Foreign Agricultural
Service, Department of Agriculture............................. 183
Galvin, Timothy J., Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 183
Prepared statement........................................... 242
Generic Pharmaceutical Industry Association, prepared statement.. 1113
Glickman, Dan, Secretary of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Statement of................................................. 14
Gorton, Hon. Slade, U.S. Senator from Washington:
Prepared statement........................................... 388
Question submitted by........................................ 473
Questions submitted to:
Farm Service Agency...................................... 267
Foreign Agricultural Service............................. 372
Statements of...........................................7, 198, 387
Harkin, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from Iowa:
Prepared statement........................................... 416
Questions submitted by....................................... 486
Statement of................................................. 13
Health Industry Manufacturers Association, prepared statement.... 1115
Henney, Jane E., M.D., Commissioner, Food and Drug
Administration, Department of Health and Human Services........ 383
Prepared Statement........................................... 393
Statement of................................................. 389
Horn, Dr. Floyd P., Administrator, Agricultural Research Service,
Department of Agriculture, prepared statement.................. 575
Illinois Soybean Association, prepared statement................. 1118
Imperial County, California, prepared statement.................. 1120
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, prepared
statement...................................................... 1123
Izaak Walton League of America, prepared statement............... 1128
Jill Long Thompson, Under Secretary for Joslin Diabetes Center,
prepared statement............................................. 1129
Kaplan, Dennis, Deputy Director for Budget, Legislative and
Regulatory Systems, Office of Budget and Program Analysis,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 183
Kelly, Keith, Administrator, Farm Service Agency, Department of
Agriculture.................................................... 183
Prepared statement........................................... 221
Kloubec, Myron, Midwest Regional Aquaculture Center, prepared
statement...................................................... 1196
Kohl, Hon. Herb, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin:
Prepared statements........................................231, 407
Questions submitted by.....................................110, 474
Questions submitted to:
Farm Service Agency...................................... 269
Foreign Agricultural Service............................. 373
Risk Management Agency................................... 379
Statements of...............................................12, 230
Laughlin, Dr. Charles W., Administrator, Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service, Department of
Agriculture, prepared statement................................ 588
Levitt, Joseph A., Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health
and Human Services............................................. 383
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute and the University of
Miami, prepared statement...................................... 1230
McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, questions
submitted by................................................... 474
Merrigan, Kathleen, Administratore, Agricultural Marketing
Service, Department of Agriculture, prepared statement......... 571
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, prepared
statement...................................................... 1130
Minor Crop Farmer Alliance, prepared statement................... 1133
Mississippi State University, prepared statement................. 1135
Mitchell R. Zeller, Director, Office of Tobacco Programs, Food
and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human
Services....................................................... 383
Myers, Lester W., Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, prepared
statement...................................................... 1193
National:
Agricultural Aviation Association, prepared statement........ 1136
Alliance for Food Safety, prepared statement................. 1137
Association of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers, prepared
statement.................................................. 1113
Association of State University and Land-Grant Colleges,
prepared statement......................................... 1139
Association of University Fisheries and Wildlife Programs,
prepared statement......................................... 1142
Commodity Supplemental Food Program Association, prepared
statement.................................................. 1155
Congress of American Indians, prepared statement............. 1144
Consortium for Rural Geospatial Innovations, prepared
statement.................................................. 1146
Cooperative Business Association, prepared statement......... 1148
Corn Growers Association, prepared statement................. 1150
Council of Farmer Cooperatives, prepared statement........... 1152
Fisheries Institute, prepared statement...................... 1158
Food Processors Association, prepared statement.............. 1159
Grain and Feed Association, prepared statement............... 1161
Pharmaceutical Alliance, prepared statement.................. 1113
Potato Council, prepared statement........................... 1164
Rural Telecom Association, prepared statement................ 1165
Telephone Cooperative Association, prepared statement........ 1169
Treasury Employees Union, prepared statement................. 1171
Utility Contractors Association, prepared statement.......... 1173
Watershed Coalition, prepared statement...................... 1174
Nature Conservancy, prepared statement........................... 1177
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, prepare statement....... 1179
Newell, Carter, Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Center,
prepared statement............................................. 1195
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, prepared statement........ 1181
Oceanic Institute, prepared statement............................ 1183
Offutt, Susan E., Administrator, Economic Research Service,
Department of Agriculture; prepared statement.................. 584
Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small
Telecommunications Companies, prepared statement............... 1184
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, prepared
state-
ment........................................................... 1187
Predator Conservation Alliance, prepared statement............... 1189
Red River Valley Association, prepared statement................. 1190
Reed, Pearlie S., Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Department of Agriculture, prepared statement.................. 616
Reimers, Ramsey, Tropical and Subtropical Regional Aquaculture
Center, prepared statement..................................... 1194
Rominger, Richard, Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 1
Santa Clara Valley Water District, prepared statement............ 1196
Schumacher, August, Jr., Under Secretary, Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services, Department of Agriculture............... 183
Prepared statement........................................... 212
Statement of................................................. 209
Schwetz, Bernard, D.V.M., Ph.D., Acting Deputy Commissioner, Food
and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human
Services....................................................... 383
Seminole Tribe of Florida, prepared statement.................... 1197
Shackelford, Parks, Associate Administrator for Programs, Farm
Service Agency, Department of Agriculture...................... 183
Shalala, Hon. Donna E., Secretary, Department of Health and Human
Services....................................................... 383
Prepared statement........................................... 386
Shumaker, Doug, Under Secretary, Farm and Foreign Agriculture
Services, Department of Agriculture............................ 1
Society for Animal Protective Legislation, prepared statement.... 1203
Society of American Foresters, prepared statement................ 1199
Specter, Hon. Arlen, U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania:
Questions submitted by....................................... 94
Statement of................................................. 6
State of Illinois, prepared statement............................ 1206
State of Wyoming, prepared statement............................. 1214
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska:
Prepared statement........................................... 388
Questions submitted to the Risk Management Agency............ 379
Statement of................................................. 14
Texas A&M University, prepared statement......................... 1215
Thompson, Jill Long, Under Secretary for Rural Development,
Department of Agriculture, prepared statement.................. 642
Thompson, Sally, Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Chief
Financial Officer, Department of Agriculture, prepared
statement...................................................... 622
U.S. Apple Association, prepared statement....................... 1219
United States Telecom Association, prepared statement............ 1221
University of Illinois, prepared statements............1224, 1227, 1228
University of Southern Mississippi, prepared statement........... 1232
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement.... 1235
USA Rice Federation, prepared statement.......................... 1236
Viadero, Roger C. Inspector General, Office of Inspector General,
Department of Agriculture, prepared statement.................. 625
Watkins, Dayton J., Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative
Service, Department of Agriculture, prepared statement......... 639
Watkins, Shirley R. Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition and Consumer
Services, Department of Agriculture, prepared statement........ 596
Wildlife Management Institute, prepared statement................ 1237
Williams, Dennis P., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget,
Department of Health and Human Services........................ 383
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
Page
Agricultural marketing, changes in............................... 571
Budget request summary........................................... 575
Commodity purchase services...................................... 574
Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program...................... 649
Foreign market news.............................................. 573
Market news, mandatory........................................... 572
Marketing orders and organic production.......................... 573
Microbiology Data Program........................................ 574
Mission.......................................................... 571
National Organic Program......................................... 649
Organic:
Certification................................................ 572
Market news.................................................. 572
Seafood standards............................................ 650
PDP--Water Testing Program....................................... 573
Small farmers and FSMIP.......................................... 573
Agricultural Research Service
Budget, fiscal year 2001......................................... 577
Buildings and facilities......................................... 582
Major ARS accomplishments........................................ 576
Pay costs........................................................ 582
Project terminations............................................. 582
Research initiatives, new and expanded........................... 577
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Emergency management system...................................... 651
Emerging plant pests............................................. 652
Grasshopper/mormon cricket....................................... 651
Increases and decreases, summary of.............................. 653
Kudzu............................................................ 651
Line item funding................................................ 650
National poultry improvement plan................................ 653
Pink bollworm.................................................... 651
Scrapie.......................................................... 652
Wildlife services operations..................................... 652
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Advanced Spatial Tech, Mississippi (Precision Agriculture)....... 653
Aflatoxin Research, Illinois..................................... 654
AG-Based Industrial Lubricants Research Program, Iowa............ 658
Agricultural:
Development in the American pacific.......................... 813
Diversification and Specialty Crops Grant.................... 655
Diversity/Red River, MN and ND............................... 656
Waste utilization, West Virginia............................. 814
Agriculture:
In the classroom...........................................838, 876
Telecommunications, NY....................................... 659
Water usage, GEORGIA......................................... 661
Alliance for food protection, NE, GA............................. 661
Alternative crops:
For arid lands, Texas........................................ 664
North Dakota................................................. 663
Alternative Salmon Products Program, Alaska...................... 665
Animal:
Science Food Safety Consortium............................... 666
Waste management, Oklahoma................................... 816
Anti-Hunger and Food Security Grants Program..................... 880
Apple fire blight, Michigan and New York......................... 667
Aquaculture:
Louisiana.................................................... 668
North Carolina............................................... 671
Product and marketing development, W.V....................... 672
Research, Stoneville, Mississippi............................ 670
Virginia..................................................... 671
Babcock Institute for International Dairy Research and
Development.................................................... 673
Beef improvement--Arkansas....................................... 839
Biobased products................................................ 880
Biodiesel research, Missouri..................................... 675
Biotechnology research, Mississippi.............................. 818
Blocking anhydrous methamphetamine production, Iowa.............. 676
Botanic Garden initiative, Illinois.............................. 840
Bovine tuberculosis, Michigan.................................... 676
Brucellosis vaccine, Montana..................................... 677
Budget highlights, fiscal year 2001.............................. 589
Center for:
Agriculture and Rural Development, Iowa...................... 818
Animal Health and Productivity, Pennsylvania................. 677
Innovative Food Technology, Ohio............................. 819
North American Studies, Texas................................ 820
Rural Studies, Vermont....................................... 679
Chesapeake Bay:
Agroecology, MD.............................................. 680
Aquaculture, Maryland........................................ 681
Citrus tristeza.................................................. 682
Climate change research, Florida................................. 821
Coastal cultivars, GA............................................ 682
Competitiveness of agriculture products, Washington.............. 683
Conservation technology transfer, Wisconsin...................... 841
Cool season legume research...................................... 684
Cotton research, Texas........................................... 822
Cranberry and blueberry, Massachusetts........................... 685
Cranberry-blueberry disease and breeding, New Jersey............. 686
Critical issues.................................................. 687
Curriculum development/Mississippi Valley State University....... 822
Dairy and meat goat research, Prairie View A&M, Texas............ 689
Data information system.......................................... 824
Delta:
Rural revitalization, Mississippi............................ 690
Teachers Academy............................................. 841
Designing foods for health, Texas................................ 691
Diabetes detection and prevention, Washington and Hawaii......... 843
Diaprepes/rootweevil, Florida.................................... 692
Drought mitigation, Nebraska..................................... 693
Ecosystems, Alabama.............................................. 694
Environmental:
Research, New York........................................... 695
Risk factors/cancer, New York................................ 697
Environmentally safe products, Vermont........................... 698
Expanded wheat pasture, Oklahoma................................. 699
Expert IPM decision support system............................... 700
Extension:
Federal administration projects.............................. 838
Indian Reservation Program................................... 875
Extension specialist, Mississippi............................ 844
Farm and rural finance, Illinois and Arkansas.................... 702
Feed barley for rangeland cattle, Montana........................ 704
Floriculture, Hawaii............................................. 704
Food:
And Agriculture Policy Institute, Iowa and Missouri.......... 705
Irradiation, Iowa............................................ 706
Marketing Policy Center, Connecticut......................... 708
Processing Center, Nebraska.................................. 709
Quality, Alaska.............................................. 710
Safety Initiative--National Research Initiative.............. 859
Safety, Alabama.............................................. 711
Systems Research Group, Wisconsin............................ 712
Forages for advanced livestock production, Kentucky.............. 713
Forestry research, Arkansas...................................... 713
Fruit and vegetable market analysis, Arizona and Missouri........ 715
Generic commodity promotion, New York............................ 716
Geographic information systems................................... 826
Global change.................................................... 717
Global marketing support services, Arkansas...................... 719
Grain sorghum, Kansas............................................ 720
Grass seed cropping systems for sustainable agriculture.......... 721
Gulf coast shrimp aquaculture.................................... 828
Human nutrition:
Iowa......................................................... 722
Louisiana.................................................... 723
New York..................................................... 724
Hydroponic tomato production, Ohio............................... 725
Illinois-Missouri alliance for biotechnology..................... 726
Improved:
Dairy management practices, Pennsylvania..................... 727
Early detection of crop disease, N.C......................... 728
Fruit practices, Michigan.................................... 729
Income enhancement demonstration, Ohio........................... 845
Infectious disease research, Colorado............................ 730
Institute for food science and engineering, Arkansas............. 730
1890 Institutions................................................ 871
1994 institutions................................................ 869
Integrated:
Activities................................................... 878
Cow-calf management--Iowa.................................... 846
Pest management.............................................. 731
Production systems, Oklahoma................................. 733
Research, education, and extension activities................ 878
International:
Agricultural market structures & institutions, KY............ 734
Arid lands consortium........................................ 734
Iowa biotechnology consortium.................................... 736
IR-4 minor crop management....................................... 737
Jointed goatgrass (Aegilops Cylindricum)......................... 739
Livestock:
And dairy policy, New York and Texas......................... 741
Marketing Information Center, Colorado....................... 830
Lowbush blueberry research, Maine................................ 742
Maple research, Vermont.......................................... 743
Mariculture, North Carolina...................................... 830
Meadowfoam, Oregon............................................... 743
Methyl Bromide Transition Program................................ 880
Michigan biotechnology consortium................................ 744
Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance, Nebraska........... 746
Midwest agricultural products, Iowa.............................. 747
Milk safety, Pennsylvania........................................ 748
Minor use animal drugs........................................... 749
Molluscan shellfish, Oregon...................................... 751
Multi-commodity research, Oregon................................. 753
Multi-cropping strategies for aquaculture, Hawaii................ 752
National:
Alternative fuels laboratory................................. 815
Biological Impact Assessment Program......................... 754
Center for Peanut Competitiveness............................ 831
Education Center for Agricultural Safety, Iowa............... 847
Research initiative.......................................... 870
Nematode resistance genetic engineering, New Mexico.............. 756
Nevada arid rangelands initiative, Nevada........................ 757
New crop opportunities:
Alaska....................................................... 757
Kentucky..................................................... 758
Nonfood Agricultural Products Program, Nebraska.................. 758
Oil resources from desert plants, New Mexico..................... 759
Organic waste utilization, New Mexico............................ 760
Pasture & forage research, Utah.................................. 761
Peach tree short life in South Carolina.......................... 762
Peanut allergy reduction, Alabama................................ 763
Pest:
Control alternatives, South Carolina......................... 764
Management alternatives...................................... 765
Phytophthora root rot, New Mexico................................ 766
Pilot technology:
Project, Wisconsin........................................... 852
Transfer projects, Oklahoma and Mississippi.................. 850
Plant, drought, and disease resistance gene cataloging........... 767
PM-10 study, California and Washington........................... 832
Potato research.................................................. 768
Pre-harvest food safety, Kansas.................................. 770
Precision agriculture:
Alabama and Tennessee........................................ 833
Kentucky..................................................... 769
Preservation and processing research, Oklahoma................... 771
Range policy development, New Mexico............................. 853
Rangeland ecosystems, NM......................................... 772
Red snapper research/Alabama..................................... 773
Regional:
Barley gene mapping project.................................. 774
Crop information and policy centers.......................... 869
Regionalized implications of farm programs....................... 775
Research Federal administration projects......................... 813
Rice modeling, AR................................................ 776
Rural development:
Alaska....................................................... 854
Centers...................................................... 777
Oklahoma..................................................... 856
Through tourism, New Mexico.................................. 855
Rural:
Health projects, Louisiana and Mississippi................... 877
Policies Institute........................................... 779
Rehabilitation, Georgia...................................... 857
Russian wheat aphid, Colorado.................................... 780
Seafood:
Harvesting, processing, and marketing, Alaska................ 783
Mississippi.............................................. 783
Safety/Massachusetts......................................... 784
Small:
Farms initiative............................................. 879
Fruit research, Oregon....................................... 785
Smith-Lever 3(D) farm safety and agrability...................... 870
Southwest consortium for plant genetics and water resources...... 786
Soybean cyst nematode............................................ 788
STEEP--water quality in Pacific Northwest........................ 789
Sustainable agriculture:
California................................................... 790
Michigan..................................................... 791
Systems, Nebraska............................................ 793
Sustainable:
And natural resources, Pennsylvania.......................... 792
Beef supply, Montana......................................... 794
Pest management for dryland wheat, Montana................... 795
Swine waste management, North Carolina........................... 796
Tillage, silviculture, and waste management, Louisiana........... 797
Tomato wilt virus, Georgia....................................... 798
Tropical:
And subtropical research..................................... 800
Aquaculture/Florida.......................................... 799
Turkey carnavirus, Indiana....................................... 801
Urban pests, Georgia............................................. 803
Vidalia onions, Georgia.......................................... 804
Viticulture consortium, New York and California.................. 804
Water:
Conservation, Kansas......................................... 805
Quality--Illinois............................................ 834
North Dakota............................................. 836
Weed control, North Dakota....................................... 806
Wetland Plants, Louisiana........................................ 808
Wheat Genetics, Kansas........................................... 809
Wood:
Biomass, New York............................................ 858
Research..................................................... 811
Utilization research......................................... 810
Youth Farm Safety Education and Certification.................... 870
Departmental Administration
Contracts to private sources for services........................ 882
Economic Research Service
Budget........................................................... 584
Carbon sequestration............................................. 884
Customers, partners, and stakeholders............................ 587
Geographic breakdown of obligations.............................. 886
Mission.......................................................... 584
Area goals, ERS contributions to............................. 584
Research priorities.............................................. 884
Structural changes and concentration............................. 883
Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services
Administrative convergence....................................... 263
Africa, food assistance for...................................... 206
American agriculture, President's 2001 budget proposals for...... 213
CCC:
Automated data processing cap................................ 218
Program outlays.............................................. 218
Cooperative Development Initiatives, fund........................ 218
Disaster assistance, impact of................................... 259
Emergency assistance payments.................................... 258
Farm loan........................................................ 219
FFAS funding issues.............................................. 240
FSA:
County employees, status of.................................. 228
Implements New and Ad Hoc Assistance for Farmers............. 258
Workload..................................................... 229
Funding needs, supplemental...................................... 228
Legislation on budget, impact of................................. 263
Programs:
Conservation, price impact of................................ 261
Reserve.................................................. 240
Cottonseed assistance program................................ 257
Dairy Options Pilot.......................................... 233
Price Support, extend the................................ 218
New in 2000.................................................. 258
Public Law 480................................................... 265
Realized losses, reimbursement for............................... 218
Service centers.................................................. 220
Singapore, closing ATO........................................... 241
Staffing......................................................... 220
State mediation grants........................................... 219
Surplus commodities, donations of................................ 264
Trade policy initiatives......................................... 217
Farm Service Agency
Administrative:
Convergence.................................................. 263
Support...................................................... 226
Appreciation agreements, shared.................................. 271
Cattle farmer amendments......................................... 274
CCC ADP cap...................................................... 230
Commodity Credit Corporation..................................... 221
County office staffing........................................... 273
Dairy assistance payments........................................ 272
Drought.......................................................... 274
Emergency loans.................................................. 266
Farm loans....................................................... 266
FSA:
County employees, status of.................................. 228
Office space................................................. 273
Temporary staffing........................................... 229
Workload..................................................... 229
Funding needs, supplemental...................................... 228
Programs:
Appropriated, other.......................................... 226
Conservation................................................. 266
Reserve.................................................. 240
Cottonseed Assistance........................................ 257
Dairy Export Incentive....................................... 230
Farm Loan.................................................... 225
Grain Storage Loan........................................... 272
Staffing......................................................... 220
State mediation grants........................................... 269
USDA/SBA emergency ``eligibility'' gap........................... 271
Food and Nutrition Service
Alternative protein products..................................... 888
Budget request, 2001............................................. 592
Child:
Nutrition programs........................................... 593
Nutrition State Administrative Expenses...................... 886
Commodity Assistance Programs.................................... 595
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program................................ 594
Food:
Program administration....................................... 595
Stamp Program................................................ 592
Government Performance and Results Act........................... 596
Incentive payments............................................... 886
Nutrition:
Education and training....................................... 887
Program for the elderly...................................... 595
School:
Breakfast demos.............................................. 887
Meals initiative and team nutrition.......................... 593
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for women, infants, and
children (WIC)................................................. 594
Studies and evaluation........................................... 595
Studies and reports.............................................. 889
WIC electronic benefit transfer (EBT)............................ 594
Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
Child Nutrition Programs......................................... 602
Commodity Assistance Programs.................................... 603
Food:
Donations programs........................................... 603
Highlights................................................... 597
Program administration....................................... 603
Stamp Program................................................ 601
Request, fiscal year 2001........................................ 601
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for women, infants and
children (WIC)................................................. 603
Studies and evaluations.......................................... 604
Foreign Agricultural Service
Agricultural trade office........................................ 279
Allocations....................................................302, 317
Budget request................................................... 251
Capacity building................................................ 257
DEIP............................................................. 376
Export credit guarantee activities............................... 346
Farm income, FAS efforts to support.............................. 243
FAS:
Houses....................................................... 278
Housing...................................................... 375
Foreign:
Market development........................................... 302
Trade........................................................ 377
And assistance........................................... 373
Maintenance account, buying power................................ 279
Overseas offices................................................. 342
Pakistan, wheat sales to......................................... 372
Pay costs........................................................ 279
Priorities:
For 2001..................................................... 245
Global....................................................... 246
Regional..................................................... 248
Programs......................................................... 252
Cochran Fellowship........................................... 254
Funding for.............................................. 314
Cooperator................................................... 280
Export Enhancement........................................... 374
Market access and foreign market development................. 374
Scientific Cooperation Research.............................. 281
Public Law 480.................................................265, 376
Russia and the New Independent States............................ 249
Section 108...................................................... 371
Singapore, closing ATO........................................... 241
U.S. trade prospects............................................. 242
World hunger/U.S. assistance..................................... 374
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Budget request, fiscal year 2001................................. 610
Civil rights..................................................... 609
GIPSA's:
Federal Grain Inspection Service............................. 606
Organization................................................. 605
Packers and Stockyards Programs (P&S)........................ 605
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Major Activities of the National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS)......................................................... 613
Plans, fiscal year 2001.......................................... 614
National Appeals Division
Budget request, fiscal year 2001................................. 616
Mission.......................................................... 616
Natural Resources Conservation Service
American Indians and Alaska Natives, additional assistance to.... 894
Commodity Credit Corporation Funded Conservation Programs........ 620
Conservation through partnerships................................ 621
Eqip national priority areas..................................... 895
Farm Safety net initiative....................................... 893
Funding, discretionary........................................... 617
Funds available for CRP and WRP.................................. 894
General provision section 717, impact of......................... 895
Operation of plant materials centers............................. 894
Rescission of financial assistance............................... 894
Studies and reports.............................................. 895
Watershed Loan Program subsidy................................... 893
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Budget request, fiscal year 2001................................. 623
Working Capital Fund............................................. 624
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Capital planning and investment control (CPIC) process........... 895
Common computing environment/service center modernization........ 903
Consolidating/outsourcing USDA headquarters information
technology functions........................................... 911
E-Commerce....................................................... 900
Government................................................... 920
Information systems architecture................................. 900
Infoshare balances............................................... 920
IT:
Acquisition moratorium....................................... 918
Moratorium................................................... 899
President's decision directive (PDD) 63.......................... 918
Security......................................................... 913
Service center implementation oversight.......................... 909
Telecommunications enterprise network............................ 919
USDA information technical infrastructure........................ 917
Office of Inspector General
Accounting and financial management.............................. 638
Audit and investigations activities.............................. 629
Employee integrity............................................... 631
Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services........................... 633
Food:
Nutrition, and Consumer Services............................. 634
Safety....................................................... 629
Information resources management................................. 632
Natural resources and environment................................ 637
Rural development................................................ 636
Workplace violence............................................... 632
Office of the Secretary
Administrative convergence....................................... 76
Advisory committees, panels, commissions, and task forces........ 92
After-school centers............................................. 166
Agricultural:
Concentration...............................................80, 121
Slump, causes of............................................. 205
AMTA:
Program...................................................... 57
Recipients, ineligibility of current......................... 37
Animal welfare................................................... 120
Aquaculture research funding..................................... 118
Bio-terrorism.................................................... 113
Biobased products/bioenergy...................................... 77
Biotechnology...........................................74, 75, 97, 109
Activities...................................................58, 60
Breakfast:
Pilot........................................................ 163
Reimbursement rate, temporary increase in.................... 164
Buildings and facilities......................................... 108
C&H sugar refinery............................................... 50
Change current farm program...................................... 56
Child and adult care food program pooling........................ 165
CIO priorities................................................... 91
Citrus canker.................................................... 53
Civil rights............................................18, 47, 80, 103
Complaints, resolution of.................................... 104
Investigation and enforcement................................ 111
Settlements.................................................. 104
Climate change technology........................................ 119
Colonias site selection.......................................... 67
Commission on 21st century agriculture........................... 112
Commodity Credit Corporation..................................... 71
Computer security................................................ 62
Funding...................................................... 63
Congressional request, administration ignoring................... 100
Conservation and dairy........................................... 159
Conservation:
Programs..................................................... 45
Price impact of.......................................... 261
Reserve program.............................................. 160
Security program............................................. 105
Technical assistance......................................... 159
Cottonseed assistance............................................ 63
County-based staffing levels..................................... 160
Cranberries...................................................... 122
Crops eligible for subsidies, new................................ 38
Dairy............................................................ 94
Assistance................................................... 39
Forage/integrated farming systems............................ 117
Market loss program.......................................... 127
Options pilot program........................................ 155
Price support................................................ 16
Debt for nature.................................................. 158
Delta:
Initiative, new.............................................. 38
Regional authority, new...................................... 66
Departmental management activities............................... 34
Detailees........................................................ 92
Disaster assistance, impact of................................... 259
Drought.......................................................... 95
Egg safety action plan........................................... 124
Emergency loans.................................................. 72
Exotic pest infestation.......................................... 51
Export:
Credit guarantee program..................................... 16
Enhancement program.......................................... 46
Program funding.............................................. 104
Factors affecting the outcome, other............................. 193
Farm and foreign agricultural services........................... 19
Farm:
Crisis aggregate indicators, implications of the............. 189
Farm level indicators, implications of the............... 191
Economic:
Downturn in more detail, explaining the.................. 188
Situation................................................ 15
Loans........................................................ 71
Safety....................................................... 81
Net proposal............................................. 15
Safety net................................................... 203
Service agency............................................... 99
Storage facility program..................................... 16
FARM*A*SYST/HOME*A*SYST.......................................... 112
Fiscal year 2000:
Funding for common computing environment..................... 89
Supplemental request......................................... 95
Flood control structure rehabilitation........................... 158
Food:
Nutrition.................................................... 18
Recalls...................................................... 126
Safety.......................................................17, 28
Food stamp information:
Builds on existing efforts................................... 68
Information, provision of.................................... 67
Program...................................................... 44
Food, nutrition and consumer services............................ 27
Forage crop insurance program.................................... 156
Frito lay........................................................ 47
FSA:
County office personnel...................................... 157
Staffing..................................................... 101
FSIS:
Inspector shortage.........................................105, 125
Food Inspector Recruitment Efforts..........................83, 125
General economy booms; agriculture slumps--why?.................. 187
GIPSA and biotech grains......................................... 123
Global change research........................................... 108
GMO crops and livestock.......................................... 97
Mandatory labeling...........................................97, 98
Grain storage loan program....................................... 97
HACCP............................................................ 123
Inspection models............................................ 126
Models....................................................... 98
HHS RE nutrition education, coordination with.................... 166
Hunger:
Cause of high rate of........................................ 69
In seven states, actions to address.......................... 69
Inspector General, Office of..................................... 36
Invasive species............................................48, 74, 119
Land acquisition................................................. 46
Lands legacy initiative.......................................... 106
Listeria testing................................................. 126
Livestock reporting.............................................. 82
Lower Mississippi Delta nutrition research....................... 68
Mandatory funds, technical assistance for........................ 70
Market:
Information Program.......................................... 108
Prospects--the next 12-18 months............................. 191
Marketing:
And inspection............................................... 17
Regulatory programs...................................... 33
Methyl bromide.................................................113, 115
Migrant farm workers, emergency assistance to.................... 72
Milk:
Forward price contracts...................................... 123
Price protection............................................. 157
Minor use pesticides...........................................116, 117
Monitoring abuse via electronic benefit transfer (EBT)........... 68
NAD decisions..................................................127, 154
Native:
American programs............................................ 162
Americans class action lawsuit............................... 103
Natural resources and environment................................ 30
Natural resources:
Conservation service......................................... 99
Management................................................... 18
Nonfat dry milk.................................................. 232
Nutrition education and program information...................... 67
One-stop customer service........................................ 90
Organic rules.................................................... 122
Outreach/technical assistance.................................... 92
Overseas markets, recent progress in the opening and expansion of 78
Partnership for change:
Colonias initiative.......................................... 66
Other sites considered for................................... 67
Time frame for............................................... 67
Plum pox......................................................... 95
Program civil rights cases, settlement of........................ 110
Project terminations............................................. 107
Puerto Rico's EBT program and program abuse...................... 162
Rapid response teams............................................. 121
Regional dairy compacts......................................40, 42, 43
Research......................................................... 17
Education, and economics..................................... 31
Resource conservation and development............................ 158
Round II EC/EZ, funding for...................................... 161
Rural:
America, fund for............................................ 112
Development..............................................17, 25, 99
Housing direct and guaranteed loans.......................... 72
RUS FFB activity................................................. 161
Safety net program............................................... 37
School breakfast:
Participation................................................ 163
Reimbursement................................................ 164
Section:
11 cap....................................................... 45
764 and 765, discontinuation of.............................. 161
2501 funds, use of........................................... 111
Service center:
Business process reengineering............................... 90
Information technology....................................... 91
Modernization funding........................................ 83
Request.................................................. 89
Storage facilities............................................... 98
Sugar:
Issue........................................................ 54
Program...................................................... 55
Tariff rate quota............................................ 55
Supplemental appropriation....................................... 50
Supplemental income assistance program........................... 64
Sustainable agriculture research and education................... 113
Telecommunications to rural areas................................ 105
Trade............................................................77, 79
Under the rule................................................... 60
USDA:
Inspectors, shortage of...................................... 53
Understaffed inspectors...................................... 49
User fees........................................................ 112
Wheat loan deficiency payments................................... 110
WIC:
Farmers market funding:......................................
Delays................................................... 165
Immediate availability of................................ 165
Food packaging recommendations............................... 96
Vender:
Aaccess in rural areas................................... 70
Accessibility...........................................69, 162
Year 2000 computer problem:
Lessons learned from the..................................... 91
Spending to resolve.......................................... 92
Year 2000 dietary guidelines..................................... 95
Risk Management Agency
Company underwriting gains....................................... 378
Conservation technical assistance................................ 239
Crop insurance legislation, proposed............................. 262
Dairy Options Pilot Program...................................... 379
Expenses, administrative and operating (A&O)..................... 236
FCIC fund........................................................ 236
Information technology (IT) costs................................ 378
Legislation on budget, impact of................................. 263
Market, responding to the........................................ 235
Resources, leveraging scarce..................................... 235
Risk management education........................................ 377
USDA assistance, imbalance of.................................... 380
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
639
Appropriate technology transfer for rural areas.................. 641
Bio-based products............................................... 641
Business and Industry Guaranteed and Direct Loan Programs........ 639
Cooperative:
Capitalization Fund.......................................... 642
Research agreements.......................................... 641
Intermediary Relending Program................................... 640
National Sheep Industry Improvement Center....................... 641
Rural Business:
Enterprise grants............................................ 640
Opportunity grants........................................... 641
Rural:
Cooperative development grants............................... 641
Economic development loans and grants........................ 640
Empowerment zones and enterprise communities grants.......... 642
Salaries and expenses............................................ 642
Rural Development
642
Budget request................................................... 644
Expenses, administrative......................................... 644
Program budget request........................................... 645
Rural:
Business-Cooperative Services................................ 646
Housing Service.............................................. 645
Utilities Service............................................ 648
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Antimicrobial products........................................... 480
Assessing the quality of dietary supplements..................... 448
Automated identification systems, report on...................... 450
Biotechnology foods.............................................. 411
Bioterrorism..................................................... 426
Bottled water study.............................................. 476
Budget request, fiscal year 2001................................. 400
Buildings and facilities......................................... 457
Clinical Pharmacology Program.................................... 444
CODEX............................................................ 490
Standards, selected.......................................... 491
Collaboration and leveraging opportunities....................... 395
Consumer information............................................. 478
Dietary supplements..................................413, 420, 448, 562
Ephedra...................................................... 417
Egg safety.....................................................425, 477
Europe, FDA-type structure in.................................... 416
FDA:
Counter-bioterrorism activities.............................. 451
Infrastructure............................................... 405
Science base, strengthening................................397, 427
FDAMA implementation............................................. 396
Fees, few user................................................... 421
Food:
Biotechnology................................................ 424
Contact substance............................................ 476
Safety....................................................... 433
And Technology, National Center for...................... 560
Initiative.............................................397, 474
Gene therapy...................................................419, 566
Generic drugs........................................410, 424, 480, 568
Ginseng.......................................................... 477
Healthy people 2010.............................................. 463
Human antibiotics in animals, use of............................. 560
Illegal internet drug sales...................................... 428
Imported food..................................................491, 492
Action plan.................................................. 425
Internet drug sales............................................423, 478
Irradiated foods--labeling....................................... 408
Laboratory:
Arkansas regional............................................ 483
Detroit...................................................... 482
Los Angeles.................................................. 482
Managing risk, assuring safety by................................ 394
Mandatory costs, absorption of................................... 429
Market through strong science, bringing new products to.......... 401
Medical:
Device review................................................ 459
Devices, single use........................................414, 481
Error initiative............................................. 431
Errors....................................................... 418
Neutraceuticals.................................................. 569
Orphan drugs...................................................447, 563
Evergreening................................................. 479
Prescription drug:
Foreign purchase of.......................................... 411
Pricing...................................................... 410
President and the Congress, initiatives of special note and
interest to the................................................ 403
President's egg safety plan...................................... 561
Recruitment and training......................................... 406
Rent and related activities...................................... 454
Safety net through strong science, assuring a strong............. 401
Sara Lee listeria outbreak....................................... 562
Science base, strengthening...................................... 407
Seafood:
Equivalency................................................422, 558
Agreements............................................... 445
Inspection................................................... 422
From Commerce............................................ 476
Single-use medical devices, reuse of............................. 564
Tobacco.......................................................... 419
Reducing young people's use of............................... 399
Voluntary Seafood Inspection Program, transfer of................ 446
U.S. blood supply, assuring safety of the........................ 398
User fees........................................................ 485
Waste-management and research consortium......................... 445