[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2003
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
HENRY BONILLA, Texas, Chairman
JAMES T. WALSH, New York MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
Washington SAM FARR, California
TOM LATHAM, Iowa ALLEN BOYD, Florida
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia
RAY LaHOOD, Illinois
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Young, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Henry E. Moore, Martin P. Delgado, Maureen Holohan, and Joanne L.
Perdue, Staff Assistants
________
PART 2
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS AND
MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS
Page
Natural Resources Conservation Service........................... 1
Marketing and Regulatory Programs................................ 409
Agricultural Marketing Service............................... 557
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service................... 708
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration........................................... 1035
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-721 WASHINGTON : 2002
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman
RALPH REGULA, Ohio DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
TOM DeLAY, Texas ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
JIM KOLBE, Arizona MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama NANCY PELOSI, California
JAMES T. WALSH, New York PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina NITA M. LOWEY, New York
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
HENRY BONILLA, Texas JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
DAN MILLER, Florida ED PASTOR, Arizona
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi CHET EDWARDS, Texas
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
Washington Alabama
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
California JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
TOM LATHAM, Iowa SAM FARR, California
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri ALLEN BOYD, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
KAY GRANGER, Texas STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
RAY LaHOOD, Illinois
JOHN E. SWEENEY, New York
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia
James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2003
----------
Wednesday, February 27, 2002.
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
WITNESSES
MARK E. REY, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
PEARLIE S. REED, CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
BRENDA THOMAS, ACTING DIRECTOR, BUDGET PLANNING AND ANALYSIS DIVISION,
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
DENNIS KAPLAN, BUDGET OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Opening Remarks
Mr. Bonilla. The subcommittee will come to order. Good
morning to everyone. If some are curious as to the reason for
the lights and the extra microphones on the podiums today, it
is because later today there is going to be a hearing on Secret
Service needs. I would like to think that this hearing would be
the center of attention, but that is the reason for the
different environment that we are going to be working with this
morning.
Introduction of Witnesses
We are pleased to be holding a hearing today for the
Natural Resources Conservation Service fiscal year 2003 budget
request. Appearing before us today are Mark Rey, the Under
Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment; Pearlie Reed,
the chief of the NRCS; and Brenda Thomas, the acting budget
officer at the NRCS. Also at the witness table is Dennis
Kaplan, who is pinch hitting today for Mr. Dewhurst, who I
understand is on the dark side, as we sometimes call it
appearing over there with the Secretary. We welcome you today.
Mr. Rey, I know this is your first time before this
subcommittee. I want to welcome you and I want to congratulate
you on your appointment. It has been reported that you stated
that you have lowered expectations for this job, so much so
that one of your objectives is just to keep the job, unlike
your two predecessors who were unable to keep it. You do have a
tough job ahead, Mr. Rey. We know that you will be dealing with
two agencies under your jurisdiction that have a great impact
on public lands, through the forest service and on private
lands through the Natural Resources Conservation Service. I am
sure you are very much up to the task.
Mr. Reed, this is not your first time before this
subcommittee, so I want to welcome you back. I would just like
for you to think about the importance of your agency, and the
impact that it has on private lands in this country. I would
encourage you to do everything you can do to ensure that your
programs are carried out with as little bureaucracy as possible
to get the financial resources on the ground where they are
sorely needed.
We have your statements before us, and we have reviewed
them. We will enter those statements into the record, but
before we begin, I would like to recognize my ranking member,
Ms. Kaptur, a great partner in this process.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, and we
welcome you, Mr. Under Secretary, and, of course, Chief Reed
and all of the members of your staffs that you have brought
with you today. I just wanted to say I was so pleased to read
your background. We share Ohio heritage, particularly northern
Ohio heritage. And also the University of Michigan.
So probably I will be interested in asking you during my
question period whether you took the same course in woody
plants that I did, and having come from the school of natural
resources there with all of your experience in the Senate, I
mean, my goodness, what an excellent background you have for
the position you currently hold, and so we look forward to your
testimony.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur. We will start by
recognizing Mr. Rey, and then if Mr. Reed has an opening
statement as well, we will proceed with that. Thank you.
Under Secretary's Statement
Mr. Rey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Walsh. I
am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today to
present the fiscal year 2003 budget and program proposals for
the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the Department of
Agriculture. In addition to Mr. Reed and Mr. Kaplan appearing
with me today are Brenda Thomas, who is the acting NRCS budget
director, and Mack Gray, behind me, who is the deputy under
secretary for Natural Resources and Environment. I will
summarize and submit my entire statement for the record.
Mr. Chairman, the President often reminds us that every day
is Earth Day when you work the land, and from my perspective,
it is clear that the men and women of NRCS out in the field are
making a tremendous difference to ensure that farmers and
ranchers have the resources and expertise they need to care for
natural resources and respond to emerging challenges. This
happens through conservation operations and specifically
through conservation technical assistance.
AMERICAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION INDEX
Interestingly, NRCS has one of the highest ratings for
customer satisfaction among all government and private sector
organizations. Last year, NRCS participated in the American
Customer Satisfaction Index, which surveyed customers of NRCS'
conservation technical assistance program.
The ACSI, the American Customer Satisfaction Index, is
administered by the University of Michigan Business School, an
institution both Ms. Kaptur and I can attest to the competence
of. It is the only uniform cross industry and government
measure of customer satisfaction which allows benchmarking
between the two sectors. The NRCS results were the highest for
any USDA agency participating in the 2001 survey, and are
comparable to the results received from private sector
companies such as Mercedes-Benz and the Ritz-Carlton Hotel
chain. Our customers have come to expect excellent service from
the agency, and it will be a challenge to continue to ensure
that funding and resource support for our staff are sufficient
to help them meet the expectations of farmers and ranchers.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Let me turn to the Resource Conservation and Development
program. Because of the support of this subcommittee, the
Secretary was able to announce the selection of 20 new RC&D
areas earlier this year, bringing the total number of
authorized areas to 368. Through this program, non-Federal
Government agencies, including State, local and tribal
governments, as well as private and not-for-profit
organizations, are playing important roles in conservation
policy. The RC&D program has been extremely successful in
leveraging and matching resources among these different
organizations. We continue to receive excellent applications,
deserving of USDA recognition, and we want to enhance and
maintain this very popular program.
EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROGRAM
Turning to our water resource-related programs, we know
that emergency needs for watersheds resulting from natural
disasters averaged 110 million dollars per year over the last
several years. However, in the past, rather than planning for
this need, we have historically relied upon emergency
supplemental appropriations to respond to stricken communities
often months after the disaster. The administration's fiscal
year 2003 budget proposes $111 million for the Emergency
Watershed Program, which will allow us the latitude to better
respond to disasters more quickly.
In conclusion, the programs presented to this subcommittee
for funding are essential to the policy objectives proposed in
our overall agriculture, conservation area framework in three
areas: First, support for the cadre of trained and skilled
professionals out on the land working with farmers and ranchers
every day through Conservation Operations; second, providing
that workforce and the workforce of State and local government
cooperators with the very best data, technical tools and
training through Conservation Operations; and third, continuing
to foster collaboration and partnership with other
organizations through Conservation Operations.
I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to appear and
would be happy to respond to any questions, including the woody
plants curriculum at the University of Michigan School of
Natural Resources, which not only Ms. Kaptur and I
participated, but in the sense of the fact that it is a small
world, Mr. Reed's predecessor, Paul Johnson, taught that
program one semester as well. So it seems that there is a large
community of alumni from the woody plants program. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. Rey.
[The statement of Mr. Rey follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bonilla. Mr. Reed.
Conservation Operations
Mr. Reed. Mr. Chairman, thank you and members of the
committee, for the opportunity to appear here before you today.
With your permission, I would like to submit my written
testimony for the record.
Mr. Chairman, for the past 32 years, each day I come to
work, I think about what is important and how the NRCS can get
more conservation on the ground. Today, I would like to take
advantage of this opportunity briefly to tell you what I
believe is the most important investment you can make to
private lands conservation. That investment is in our
Conservation Operations account. The Conservation Operations
account underpins our entire national private lands
conservation infrastructure in this country. It leverages more
than a billion dollars annually in State and local conservation
investments. These investments are primarily with the local
soil and water conservation districts. The partnership USDA has
with conservation districts is a locally-led, integrated
approach for voluntary private lands conservation. Also, that
partnership provides safe passage for USDA employees into local
communities, on farms and ranches, so they, in concert with
land owners, can practice the science and art of putting
conservation practices on the ground.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today, and again,
thank you for this opportunity.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. Reed and Mr. Rey.
[The statement of Mr. Reed follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bonilla. We are going to proceed a little differently
this morning. We had a little mix-up at the last hearing, and I
apologize for that to Mr. Boyd. He was recognized out of order.
I am going to yield to him first today.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
that. I feel sort of strange jumping in front of Ms. Kaptur and
Mr. Walsh and others, but you are the Chairman.
First of all, let me say welcome to all of you, and Mr.
Secretary, it is great to see you sitting in that seat. I have
had the pleasure of working with you on a very important
landmark piece of legislation that improved communities that
have national forests in them. Many of us who are now
benefiting from that legislation owe a great deal of thanks to
you for shepherding that through when you were in a very
important position on the Senate staff. So thanks for that, and
thanks for being here.
Watershed Protection
I want to start my line of questioning by focusing on the
area of watershed protection, because I know there seems to be
a change of direction in the watershed programs in the
President's budget. The PL 566 program specifically is a
nationwide program, as you know, that was designed to protect
and improve watersheds up to 250,000 acres in size.
Currently there are approximately 515 active watershed
projects under this program around the country, while I don't
understand all of what is going on in the rest of the country,
I do understand what is going on in Florida, and I want to give
you a very specific example of how the NRCS, with this
watershed program, has made our lives better.
Suwannee River Basin
There is a rather famous river down there called the
Suwannee River, which many of you have heard about. That
Suwannee River builds up in south Georgia in the Okefenokee
Swamp, and it flows across the Georgia line and into the Gulf
of Mexico. It is a historic natural resource, and obviously the
pressure around that river to build, to have agricultural
businesses, has been immense over the last 50 years. But at the
mouth of that river there is a very important shell fish
industry, oystering and clamming and those kinds of things.
Over the last 15 years, the Federal Government, the Department
of Labor, and the State Department of Agriculture have worked
hand in hand with the local community to build an agriculture
industry that has become very successful and has really helped
our communities.
We are only able to do that because we kept that river
clean. In the northern Suwannee basin, there are probably 75 to
80 dairies. It is a big dairying community. About 8 years ago,
we put in place the PL 566 program to clean up--or help assist
these areas in their waste disposal.
It has been a very successful program, and we are in the
9th year of that program, and this budget ends what we are
about 3 years away from completion. Just this morning, I talked
to our water management district director down there, and we
are going to need about a million dollars funding each year
over the next 3 years, but your budget ends that. This problem
is what I want to focus my question on, and I want you to talk
to me a little bit about the so-called--emergency watershed
protection proposal which you have that seems to take those
kinds of programs and shift them to something to respond to
some emergency.
My contention would be that if we would prevent the
emergency from happening to start with, we would be a lot
better off.
Watershed Program Termination
Mr. Rey. The discussion within the administration about the
watershed operations program of NRCS was, I think, honestly
speaking, the greatest challenge that we faced in the
development of the NRCS 2003 budget. And that has been the case
in the past, that is not necessarily a new development. In
fiscal year 1994, for instance, at the end of the day, Congress
reduced the watersheds operations budget by 50 percent to
respond to emergency flooding in 1994 with what was supposed to
be a one-time reduction that was never modified thereafter. So
funding has stayed flat from 1994 to present.
In this budget cycle, we face challenges and difficulties
in making trade-offs more severe than we faced in 1994, and the
treatment of the watershed operations program is a reflection
of that.
At the same time, we are mindful of the fact that the
program has a great deal of local support and support among
members of Congress. Indeed, in fiscal year 2002, 64 percent of
the funds for the watershed operations account were earmarked
by members of Congress, which to me is a reflection of strong
congressional support. The one thing that I can commit to you
is that the discussion over what priority this program should
enjoy, given the other budget priorities we are trying to deal
with, both administration-wide and within the Department, is a
discussion that will continue.
It is not uncommon, for programs that are authorized by
statutes that are 40 and 50 years old, which is the case with
both of our watershed operations accounts, to face this kind of
scrutiny. It is a scrutiny that we don't shirk from, and a
discussion that we want to continue to have with you.
Mr. Boyd. Mr. Chairman, I will follow up, since I see my
red light is on I will follow up later on. Thank you----
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Boyd [continuing]. For your kindness.
Mr. Bonilla. Mr. Boyd hit the nail on the head this
morning, Mr. Rey. I feel that we are going to probably hear
from a lot more members on this subcommittee about this
specific subject. This is the subject that had Mr. Boyd not
started out with it, I was going to begin with it myself. I can
assure you that we are hearing from our project managers, not
only in our particular areas, but from people all over the
country. There is great concern about how to fund some of the
smaller projects, and some of the new projects that are
pending. So we are going to work this out, and I think after
this morning, you will walk away with a clear sense of the
feeling of every member on this subcommittee about this
watershed issue.
Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am always happy
to yield to my good friend from Florida, Mr. Boyd, and I thank
you for your courtesy to him.
Administrative Efficiencies
I wanted to ask Secretary Rey, now, in the budget that you
submitted, as I read it, there are proposed cuts, or you
describe them as savings, of over $30 million from what is
called administrative efficiencies that were not mentioned in
your testimony this morning. The budget provides almost no
details on these so-called efficiencies. I have several
questions in regard to this. First of all, I would like to know
whether when your budget was submitted to OMB, whether those
efficiencies were a part of your original proposal or not, and
whether the budget you are submitting to us today is the same
one that you submitted to OMB.
I would like to know how did you arrive at such a precise
estimate of efficiencies of $30.8 million in 341 staff years,
and I would like to know that if these savings are not
achieved, what happens to the conservation operations account?
Mr. Rey. I don't think it will surprise anyone on this
subcommittee to know that the budget that we submitted to OMB
is not the final budget that we sent to Congress. I doubt that
that is the case for any agency or department of the
government. We did submit to OMB some efficiencies which we
believe would result in savings. They had some additional
efficiencies that they suggested to us would result in greater
savings. In the course of working back and forth with them
about what we thought we could reasonably achieve in the course
of a fiscal year, we agreed on the number that is included in
the President's budget.
Most of those efficiencies--and I will let Mr. Kaplan
expand on this--but most of those efficiencies are efficiencies
associated with our continuing effort to collocate offices with
other USDA agencies and to combine administrative functions in
the field and to continue to extend the service center concept.
So I don't think that those efficiencies imply reductions in
Conservation Operations. To the contrary, the idea is to try to
stretch our dollars further to achieve more conservation
operation per dollar, but most of them instead envision one set
of support service staffs serving NRCS, FSA and Rural
Development as we continue to collocate offices.
Did you want to add to anything?
Ms. Kaptur. No. That is fine. Is it possible then for you
to provide more detail to us----
Mr. Rey. Sure.
[The information follows:]
NRCS has been working with the USDA Service Center Modernization
Initiative (SCMI) to restructure county field offices, modernize and
integrate business approaches and replace the aging information systems
with a modern common computing environment (CCE) that optimizes
information sharing, customer service, and staff efficiencies. There
are many proposed, planned, and ongoing management initiatives designed
to reduce overhead expenses thereby allowing additional resources of
the County Based Agencies (CBA's) to be shifted to the field level.
These initiatives include: completing the Common Computing Environment;
updating telecommunication capabilities; competitive sourcing of 15% of
the FTE's on the FY 2000 Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act list;
studying efficiencies that can be gained by restructuring or
reengineering the CBA's administrative functions; and additional
service center office consolidations.
Ms. Kaptur. How do you actually calculate these savings or
efficiencies? And you are saying that you assume you will
achieve these? But in any case if you don't, there will not be
a hit on the conservation operations account?
Mr. Rey. No. There would not be a hit on the Conservation
Operations account. If we don't achieve them, we will have to
reprogram in the following year, but so far--and I sort of have
to knock on wood--so far when we have agreed to a target with
OMB, we have met it. Now, that is not to say that as an initial
matter at the beginning of the discussion we will be starting
an agreement, but ultimately when we have reached an agreement
on what are achievable levels of efficiencies, we have, over
the last three or four cycles, achieved them.
CONSERVATION INFRASTRUCTURE
Ms. Kaptur. All right. Let me move quickly to Chief Reed
and ask, as you look at your entire, really, stellar career,
what would you say are some of the major achievements that you
feel that you have had, and as you look forward, what are some
of the challenges we still face in the conservation arena as we
try to think more at the policy level rather than the
accounting level here? Where should Congress be focused?
Mr. Reed. Well, first I think the greatest achievement I
have seen in my 30-plus-year career is the pulling together of
the basic conservation infrastructure out in the countryside.
Ms. Kaptur. And how much, Chief Reed, of the countryside do
we now cover, of the private lands where we have got voluntary
groups working?
Mr. Reed. Under our Conservation Operations activity, we
cover all the continental United States and the areas outside
the continental United States, with few exceptions. Keeping the
basic Conservation infrastructure together and the partnerships
so that we can deliver the basic conservation programs and
services to the farming and ranching community, is where the
Congress should be focused as the current farm bill is being
debated. I see the greatest challenge for NRCS is being able to
keep a good solid professional workforce in place throughout
the country so that we can provide the appropriate level of
technical assistance so that we can implement programs that are
being debated, programs that we know will be needed in the
future.
CUSTOMER SERVICE RATING
Ms. Kaptur. I know that my time is expired on this first
round, but I just wanted to say, to receive an 81 percent score
from the University of Michigan's business school is unheard
of, even in the private sector, and so to have that kind of
favorable response to your activities is a true credit to the
professionalism of those cooperators and advisers all over this
country, and I guess that tells me that USDA better be careful
in the future to not make changes that would harm that level of
service.
LAND STEWARDS
I just wanted to mention that recently in my own community,
one of our chief cooperators and land stewards died, and I had
the privilege to attend his funeral. It really made me think
about how we recognize these individuals, and I don't think we
really do very well. I represent both an urban and a rural
area, but we have had just these tremendous stewards that have
helped to develop a conservation ethic in our region, and I
have been thinking about what more could we do to acknowledge
and lift up these people as models to the broader community. If
you have any suggestions about that, I really have been
thinking about that of late. There are a whole set of
individuals who are part of this team locally, the original, I
guess you could say, the original plantings, and they have now
matured and moved on. But we don't seem to--at least in our
region--recognize them appropriately to the broader community.
If you have any suggestions on how we might do that, I would be
most grateful to you.
Mr. Reed. We are in the process right now of internally
developing a program to address just that. I would like to
follow up sometime in the next 2 or 3 days and provide you with
a status report on where we are with that project.
Ms. Kaptur. I thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur.
Mr. Walsh.
IMPORTANCE OF WATERSHED PROTECTION
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you both for
your testimony today. I would like to associate myself with the
remarks on my colleague from Florida, Mr. Boyd and with the
chairman on watershed protection. We spend, in our office, an
inordinate amount of time on water resources. We have lots of
water in New York. It is extremely important to our quality of
life to industry and to the environment, and also the
conservation reserve program, which has benefitted primarily--
primarily the western part of the country, but we have great
interest in that program, and I will continue to be a supporter
of that program. And we very much appreciate what you will do
to protect those resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS
My question regards animal feeding operations, and as you
mention in your testimony, there are significant environmental
risks posed by these operations. And they also pose a
tremendous difficulty for farmers to comply with the
regulations that have been proposed by EPA and USDA. I believe
that in order for farmers to comply with those regulations, we
are going to have to be supportive and do our part, and I just
wanted to ask you your thoughts, either or both, on what you
feel are the major obstacles that animal feeding operations
will have, and are we prepared to provide them with the
resources they need to meet these new regulations?
Mr. Rey. I will start, and then I will ask Mr. Reed if he
wants to augment the remarks.
I think the challenges are twofold. First, the development
of reasonable and understandable requirements, and then second,
the assurance of a delivery system on the ground that assists
farmers in meeting those requirements. We are committed to
addressing both of those challenges.
In the first instance, with EPA's cooperation and support,
USDA has formed an interdepartmental working group, which Dr.
Gray behind me cochairs with the EPA, to work on the
development of both animal feeding operation and concentrated
animal feeding operation regulations, as well as a number of
other common concerns affecting the environmental implications
of agricultural operations.
I believe what we are going to see as a result of that
collaboration are a set of regulations that are farmer friendly
and that can be reasonably implemented to affect material water
quality improvements.
The second challenge, developing delivery systems to assure
that farmers have the assistance and the resources to implement
those regulations, is something that I hope and believe that we
will be assisted in as Congress completes its work on the farm
bill. There is a considerable amount of EQIP money devoted to
that task, and if Congress does finalize the farm bill and
continue that approach, we are eager to get about the task of
implementing it.
Mr. Reed. I would just like to add to that by saying that
the amount of technical and financial assistance available to
farmers, in my opinion, will be key relative to USDA's ability
to support the farming and ranching community.
Mr. Walsh. The approach that EPA takes is far more
regulatory, and USDA tends to stress voluntary compliance. And
as we all know, EPA will, in effect, put a gun to the head of a
municipality to meet clean water standards based on waste water
treatment and those sorts of problems, pollution--other
pollution nonpoint source, too.
TMDL and CAFO Rules Compliance
With the promulgation of TMDL rules and CAFO rules, which
are absolutely needed to protect water resources in the country
and ultimately the entire national environment, the road to
hell is paved with good intentions, and farmers who are
operating on a very slim margin, certainly in my area, which is
primarily dairies, really, really worry about the ability--
their ability to meet these requirements.
So I would just urge you when you go to prepare your budget
and when you go to OMB, make the case, and we will, too, and we
will support you, that we need additional resources to help our
farmers comply so that they can do their fair share. I don't
think anybody would disagree that farmers are excellent
husbands of the land, but they can't jump through all these
hoops without our help.
Relationship with EPA
Mr. Rey. Those are good points that we are mindful of. I
think one of the advantages of the cooperative relationship
that we have developed with EPA is that we are beginning to get
a common cultural approach to dealing with the environmental
quality implications of agriculture, and EPA is beginning to
adjust what I consider classical regulatory thinking in terms
of what will really work on the ground. We are not going to
bridge that divide overnight, but I think with Dr. Gray's
assistance, we have at least concurred interdepartmentally on
which end of the cow gets up first.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
this hearing today. I am looking over the USDA's agency list,
and as I look at the budgets in your agencies, you rank about
number 4 among them. Half the budget goes to food and
nutrition, but the rest of the budget of the agency, you rank
number 4, and it is kind of interesting.
Agency Dealing with Dirt and What comes off the land
The way I look at it, you are the only agency in the USDA
that deals with dirt, and everything comes from the dirt. I
mean, everything else we spend money on comes from what is
coming off the land. You are the only agency that puts time and
energy into what goes into the land, and if we are going to
preserve agriculture, then we have got to do it.
Termination of Water Resources Program
What I can't understand is why, after this committee spoke
to the Secretary last week, emphasized that it is what is
running off the land. It is about management practices that are
causing great concerns, and yet when I look at your budget on
the watershed flood operations, it is zeroed out. On the
watershed surveys and planning, it is zeroed out. On the
watershed rehabilitation program, it is zeroed out. And on the
emergency supplemental funding, it is zeroed out.
Yet you have done a survey showing that the investment in
the watershed program that benefits to the Nation generate
about $1.6 billion. Again, my question is that you propose
eliminating the watershed and flood prevention operations, and
you say that these needs can be addressed by local governments,
yet you don't point out why. Yet last year the Department
advised this committee that there was an unfunded Federal
commitment to this program, about $1.4 billion. And I am really
puzzled why that last year this was an unfunded Federal
commitment, and this year it is not. Can you explain that? And
do you really expect the State and local governments to provide
for the $1.4 billion Federal commitment?
Since it was so cost effective last year, why is it all
zeroed out? And I think frankly you are going to hear from this
committee over and over again. What I don't understand about
the Department is that why don't we tie in conditions for risk
management? Why isn't insurance based on these things? I mean,
it is nice to ensure a crop, but if there is damage done to the
land and there is runoff, somebody else has to pay it. That is
a risk.
Why not--the cooperative State research and extension
services, why can't those grants be tied into the efforts of
NRCS? Why not allow the animal plant inspection service which
also has a much higher budget to be tied into these practices?
What I am trying to say, and I think the rest of the committee
says, is that what is happening in America is people are
understanding that it is--under it all, is the land. You are
the only agency in the USDA that really deals with the land,
and if we are going to preserve this land and protect it so
that it doesn't have downstream--you know, we can do fine on
the site, but if it is having--if that site creates problems
downstream, we are going to pick that--we are going to have to
pay for that somewhere else.
So to me, zeroing out the watershed management program is,
you know, robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is just foolish,
totally foolish. It doesn't make any sense at all, and in light
of what you said last year about the program, can you explain
why it is zeroed out this year?
Mr. Rey. I think on the watershed programs, I am getting a
fairly consistent theme here. We are a little dense, but we are
not that thick. So we will obviously take that back. We will
obviously continue to talk about that as this budget cycle
progresses. And as I said earlier, the priority setting that we
do as an administration, that you do as a Congress, with
respect to the watershed program is not new this year. We cut
the program in half in fiscal year 1994, and that money was
never restored, even though it was supposed to be a one-time
effect in response to flood conditions. But clearly, this
discussion on watersheds will continue.
Erosion and Conservation Operations
With regard to erosion and Conservation Operations, I would
make two points. One, I think our budget is sound there. It is
not reduced from fiscal year 2001 levels. But, two, and
probably more importantly, much of the effort that will go into
those on the land programs are going to be a combination of not
only this budget but the funds that are provided through the
farm bill programs which provide the majority of assistance to
farmers today for those kinds of programs including EQIP, CRP,
farmland protection, wetlands reserve, and wildlife habitat
improvement.
So I don't think you are seeing the full picture with just
this budget. Once Congress completes its work on the farm bill,
and put that alongside the budget, I think what you are going
to see in total--and, again, I am not talking about watersheds
now, I am talking about on land conservation, I think what you
are going to see in total is a pretty robust program for moving
forward in the next century.
Mr. Farr. What about the integration of all of the
agencies?
Mr. Rey. I think we are seeing more of that now. It is
something that we work on a lot, both in collocation, as well
as in combining planning functions. But we can do better at
that, and we will continue to strive to do better at that.
Mr. Farr. Thank you.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. Farr.
A little logistical information here. We are going to have
to go vote soon. Mr. Latham, my vice chairman on the
subcommittee, is now on the floor and will return and continue
the hearing immediately upon his arrival. So you might need to
be patient with us for just a couple of minutes.
But at this time we do have a couple minutes before we have
to depart, so I would like to yield once again to Mr. Boyd if
he has any additional questions.
Conserving Soil and Water
Mr. Boyd. I really didn't want to leave this topic without
saying to you good folks who have spent your life in the
business of helping America's ag producers conserve soil and
water that this panel recognizes the importance of your work. I
have got pictures on my office wall at home of my family farm
that were taken in 1940, when my father started farming it and
there are washes and ditches in it large enough to park a truck
in.
The efforts of the United States Government through the old
soil conservation service, now NRCS--and we can argue about how
we put it together, what vehicle we do it with, but the efforts
that we have made together with the industry have made us the
premier ag-producing country in the world. We know that times
have changed, and now our challenges are different. They are
not how do we keep holes from getting in our field. We figured
that out long ago.
In most of our productive ag land, we have good practices
in place. Our challenge now is the pressure being put on our
ag-producing land from outside urbanization and developing ways
to deal with those problems?
That is really what we are talking about here today, and
the watershed program is one way to preserve our natural
resources, make sure that our estuaries are clean, make sure
that our drinking water in our urban communities is clean, and
make sure that the streams and ponds are productive for fish
and those kind of things. That is really what we are talking
about and that is what this committee wants to focus on. How do
we take the needs of the changing times in conservation and
focus on that.
I just want to put a face on this watershed thing.
In 1994, when the program started, we asked 43 dairies in
the Suwannee Valley area to participate in the program. Now,
you all know that getting a farmer to participate in a Federal
program is not an easy thing to do. We got 40 out of 43 dairies
who committed to clean up their waste coming out of that area.
With the help of NRCS we have completed 30 of those.
We still have 10 that are in the implementation process,
and we just can't pull the plug on those guys. I mean, I can't
go home and face those guys if I have to tell them that the PL
566 program is no longer in place. Not only am I not going to
be able to face them, I am not going to be able to face the
oyster men and the clam fishermen down on the coast.
I just wanted to put that personal face on what you are
doing and the importance of the work that you all have spent
your life dedicated to. I know there is no question there, Mr.
Chairman, but I just wanted to make sure that it got to be part
of the record.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. Boyd. Again, Mr. Boyd is
reflecting the views of perhaps every member of this
subcommittee.
Mr. Rey. I don't think there is any ``perhaps'' about it.
Mr. Bonilla. I only hedge it somewhat, because there have
been a couple of members who have not shown up for the hearing.
Mr. Boyd. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bonilla. Yes, Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Boyd. One other thing I want to say is obviously--and I
have known this for a long time, that Mr. Mark Rey is a very
quick study.
Mr. Bonilla. The word around town is as much.
Mr. Farr. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Bonilla. Yes, Mr. Farr.
Forest Service Issue
Mr. Farr. I have one other question before we go to the
vote, and let me read this. My office has been contacted by--I
know this is in your bailiwick, but not under this committee's
jurisdiction. It is in regards to the forest service and it is
Los Padres National Forest out in my district. Both by letter
and by person of several employees of that forest, concerning
the management practice of the former supervisor Jeannine
Derby, these employees have expressed concerns to me about what
they believe a hostile work environment created by Ms. Derby's
management, in particular, several have cited the climate where
harassment goes unpunished and where victims who complain are
subject to various forms of workplace retaliation. I am not in
the position to judge the individual merits of these
complaints, but I have concluded that there is enough smoke
that there must be some fire there, and I understand that the
forest service has initiated several internal reviews of the
problems, and I ask that your office advise me as soon as
feasible as to the results of these reviews, and further ask
that the--keep me informed on the steps that will be taken to
fix any of the problems that you might identify out there.
Mr. Rey. We would be happy to do that. We have a new
regional forester in California, and dealing with this, and
some similar personnel issues is one of his top priorities. He
came on board the first of the year.
Mr. Farr. I appreciate that.
Mr. Rey. At some point when we have got some results, we
will make an appointment with you and go through them.
Mr. Farr. Okay. When I come back from the vote, I want to
talk more about watersheds.
FARM BILL
Mr. Latham [presiding]. Good morning. You are very
fortunate. I think we are going to have a short hearing this
morning. I just had a couple questions. I guess on the farm
bill, it would appear that both versions really have competing
interests, real strong commodity title and a real strong
conservation title. And I would be curious if you have done any
kind of background or research or--Pearlie, I don't know if you
have information on it, but how is this going to shake out with
all of the incentives in both the House and the Senate bills
for production? Strong incentives on conservation? Have you
seen where one side--I mean, both side is fully funded,
basically. How do we resolve that?
Mr. Reed. I have what I would consider to----
Mr. Latham. And also tell me about farmland.
Mr. Reed. First, I would like to defer to Mr. Rey. I think
he would be the person to first address your question.
Mr. Rey. The administration is committed to a fully funded
farm bill that is consistent with the budget resolution
limitation. We would like the funding levels to be even
throughout the life of the farm bill so that the money is not
front-loaded in a way that it diminishes the baseline funding
in the outyears. Within that overall limitation, we think there
is sufficient funding, both to meet our obligations to farmers
in the commodity programs, as well as to mount a robust
conservation effort. Discussions are ongoing about the balance
between the two, and that is probably not a question we can
unilaterally answer, given the status of the conference. But I
think that I can say one thing, and that is whatever emerges
from conference will be the strongest congressional commitment
to conservation programs since the dust bowl era. Assuming that
it fits within the budget resolution, it will be signed by the
President, and it will be our honor to embark on a program of
conservation that will far exceed what many of us thought
possible a year or 18 months ago.
Mr. Latham. Do you share my concern that--and I am an Iowa
farmer. I live on a farm a mile outside of the big town of
Alexander there, 167 people, and just being a farmer myself, if
the incentives are there for full production, and Senator
Harkin's staff person has said that that will bring in--their
bill would bring, according to their study, a little over 2
million acres into production. I know my neighbors, and I know
the way farmers like to grow corn and soybeans in our part of
the country, that with that much incentive in there in a
commodity title, do you have concerns about the conservation
side, that how do you compete with production? I think we are
looking at a bill--it becomes more apparent to me that if you
are a fertilizer chemical dealer, you have got a really good
deal coming.
COMMITMENT TO CONSERVATION
Mr. Rey. I think the commitment to conservation in both
bills is real, and designed to fit within the budget
resolution, there will have to be some give, both in the
commodity programs and in the conservation programs. But I
think and hope we will end up with a product that strikes a
reasonable balance. Senator Harkin's bill is very generous to
the commodity programs, but it is also very generous to the
conservation programs.
Mr. Latham. But I just know Iowa farmers, and I know my
neighbors love to grow corn, and I would like to see the
conservation side much stronger, myself. I don't think there is
a balance right now. That is my major concern on the farm bill.
Okay. In 1999 there was the USDA verdict that said that the
NRCS misunderstood and improperly enforced the wetland
conservation provisions of the farm bill, that the landowner is
entitled to make improvements needed to maintain the levels of
use, scope and effect that resulted from more far-reaching
modifications than in the past. Have you started to enforce
that or write new rules, or do you know what is happening?
Mr. Reed. I believe that is the Nebraska situation isn't
it?
Mr. Latham. I believe so.
Mr. Reed. We are working with that family and are in the
process of working through, under the minimal effects
provisions, the solution to that problem. We are also working
with our Office of General Counsel, taking a look at the ruling
and going back to look at everything we do to make sure we take
what came out of that particular ruling into consideration.
CONSERVATION SECURITY PROGRAM
Mr. Latham. what is USDA's estimate to carry out the
conservation security program as included in the recently
passed Senate farm bill for each of the fiscal years 2002 on?
How much of the total would go towards technical assistance for
each of the fiscal years 2002 through 2011? Would all the
technical assistance be carried out by the NRCS? That is an
easy question for you, Pearlie. Come on.
Mr. Reed. I would like to defer it to the Secretary. But
let me take a quick shot at it. We are developing those
estimates. If you are interested in the details, I could ask
our deputy chief of programs, Tom Weber, to come up, or we
could follow up and provide that to you. And, with respect to
us carrying out the technical assistance to do the work, we
know that we don't have the wherewithal to do that. We are
looking into third-party vendor provisions that we think will
come out of the farm bill, as well as all other options that
might be available to us in working with our partners to get
the work done.
BUDGET FOR UNDER SECRETARIES
Mr. Latham. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Rey, I know the account
for the Under Secretary is a small part of the overall budget
request, but on the department-wide basis, the request appears
to be in excess of $55 million over the funding level
appropriated in fiscal year 2002. Do you think the increases
should be devoted to offices here in Washington, or do you
think that the increases should be devoted to the field where
the programs are delivered?
Mr. Rey. You said $55 million over. I assume you meant
$55,000 over 2002.
Mr. Latham. Apparently it is $55 million on all of the
Under Secretaries.
Mr. Rey. I see. The Office of the Secretary item
generally----
Mr. Latham. $55 million.
Mr. Rey. $55 million. Generally speaking, we are about
putting resources to the ground, and that is a consistent
thread throughout the USDA budget, particularly with the
Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Forest Service,
the two agencies that this mission area oversees. The increases
in the Office of the Secretary's account are, I think, as a
result of two things, and I will let Mr. Kaplan elaborate on
these. One is some accounting changes, or putting costs of
certain functions in the personnel area back to departments and
agencies. You will find these increases in not only the Office
of the Secretary's budget, but in other budgets as well.
The second thing I think is a function of a different
management philosophy in the Department. And that is, we are
not asking the agencies to account for as many individuals that
we are bringing on as Schedule C appointments, as has been the
case in previous administrations.
With that, I will acknowledge my lack of expertise in the
overall Office of the Secretary budget line, and turn to Mr.
Kaplan to elaborate.
Mr. Kaplan. The staffing in the Under Secretary's Office,
Mr. Rey's and the other Under and Assistant Secretaries is
maintained from 2002 and 2003. There is money for pay costs,
there is money for inflation. The biggest increase in the
Office of the Secretary is $28 million for security
improvements.
Instead of trying to put money in all of the agencies'
budgets to continue what we have gotten in the homeland,
security supplemental in 2002, there is a lump sum in the
Office of the Secretary that she can use wherever it is needed
in 2003 to move along the security improvements at the
Department of Agriculture.
There is also an increase of $5 million for streamlining
costs. As we try to downsize and co-locaate more offices, we
wanted a pot of money to be able to cover some of the costs in
order to streamline our programs.
So it is not that we are adding people in the offices
themselves, these are program areas that we funded out of the
Office of the Secretary.
Mr. Latham. In the Office of the Under Secretary, there is
an increase of $152,000--that is not that many dollars--for
unspecified programs and other activities. There is no real
clear information about what it is. Can you give us any
enlightenment? And we will be asking a lot of folks what those
dollars are, that $152,000.
Mr. Kaplan. It is cost to maintain 6 staff years in the
Under Secretary's Office. There are pay costs, there is a
salary adjustment because salaries go up, there is the shift of
retirement costs.
Mr. Latham. There is no line that just says ``Program'' and
``Other.''
Mr. Kaplan. Well, there is a table in our explanatory notes
that does break it out between pay costs, salary adjustments,
inflation and things like that. But the idea is just--to fund
the 6 staff years that are in the office today. But we will
supply more information for the record.
[The information follows:]
The Under Secretary's office has an increase of $20,000 for pay;
$57,000 for salary adjustments; $2,000 for inflation and $93,000 to
ensure that he can fill vacancies with qualified individuals and pay
office expenses. The total request for this office is $923,000.
Mr. Latham. I would recognize the gentleman from Virginia,
Mr. Goode.
Watershed Rehabilitation
Mr. Goode. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me ask you this, Mr. Under Secretary. In the funding
for dam rehabilitation, you know, the program that we passed
last year, and it was 25 million, you cut that and several
other things in the soil and water conservation districts, and
there is much concern. Tell me what your rationale was on doing
that. Why?
Mr. Rey. The cuts that are resulting in the greatest degree
of concern are in our watershed program accounts, watershed
operation accounts. And as I indicated earlier, the discussion
within the administration about the funding for those accounts
was perhaps the most difficult part of the development of the
NRCS fiscal 2003 proposal.
That is not new this year. Those accounts were reduced by
50 percent in 1994 on what was to be a one-time basis. That
turned out to be a continued flat lining of the account.
In 1994, we were responding to other priorities associated
with flood conditions that were particularly difficult that
year. In this budget cycle, we are responding to other
priorities for Federal funding that are equally or even more
difficult. And so consequently, as we rate our priorities,
those programs resulted in cuts.
At the same time, as I also indicated earlier, we are
mindful of the fact that those programs enjoy considerable
support within Congress. Indeed, those programs were 64 percent
earmarked in the 2002 budget cycle, which is a reflection of
strong congressional support.
So we understand that. We are going to continue to discuss
funding for those programs as this budget cycle unfolds, this
being the beginning, not the end of that discussion.
Mr. Goode. You mentioned the watershed cuts. But let's go
back to the dam rehabilitation. Do you lump that in with that
too, and you--it just--it was tough, of course, you had to make
the cuts.
Mr. Rey. It is all part of the same program.
Mr. Goode. In a number of States you will acknowledge that
there are dams that are in bad need of repair?
Mr. Rey. There is no question that we have a large backlog
of rehabilitation needs. That reality raises two underlying
questions that I think we will be exploring as we discuss this
budget area over the course of the year.
First, in light of that, should we be devoting additional
new funds to new watershed structures? And that is what those
accounts were providing for in previous cycles.
And, second, in light of this large backlog of
rehabilitation needs, a backlog that everyone understands with
the most generous budget scenarios we would only be able to put
a small dent in, what priorities should we place on which
facilities we rehabilitate first?
Mr. Goode. Let me ask you this. Do you place a higher
priority on building new structures or taking care of what you
got?
Mr. Rey. My personal view is, given the backlog of
rehabilitation needs, we probably are faced with an
appropriation where if we have to make that choice, we ought to
be looking to rehabilitation first.
Mr. Goode. And the 25 million that was in the budget last
year, that was for rehabilitation, was it not?
Mr. Rey. I don't think it was 25. I think it was closer to
$10.
Mr. Goode. Yes. I think 25 was maybe what we hoped for and
ended up with that.
Mr. Rey. Twenty-five was, I think, the authorization; 10
was the appropriation.
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
Mr. Goode. Okay. Let me ask you this about the CREP
program. A number of farmers in my area in the Fifth District
of Virginia, Nelson County being one, Albermarle County being
another, Green County being another, have participated in that
program. And someone here in Washington is holding up those
funds, which I understand are available, but it has to do with
their interpretation of well digging. Can you make a comment on
that?
Mr. Reed. If you are talking about the Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program it is an FSA issue, that we will have to
follow up on.
Mr. Goode. Can you see, if you can, what the problem is,
because the farmers went into this to get the cows off the
streams. You have got to have a well source away from the
stream, and they included the paying for drilling the wells as
part of the CRE program. Now those farmers that have wells as
part of their conservation measures are not--they are not
releasing the funds for that.
Mr. Reed. We will follow up with the FSA folks this
afternoon and get back to you.
Mr. Goode. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
After the Appropriations Hearing, the National Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) contacted the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and
received a status report on Congressman Goode's request concerning the
release of funds in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)
in the Fifth District of Virginia.
FSA did suspend the approval of CREP contracts in Virginia,
particularly where wells were planned. At the time, Viriginia was not
adhering to the CREP policy that prohibits drilled wells as part of
this program. Subsequently, FSA has established CRP policy that allows
for the drilling of wells. This policy change is reflected by CRP
Notice Number 396 issused and made effective on March 1, 2002. A copy
of the CRP Notice is provided for the record.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
New RC&D Areas
Mr. Bonilla [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Goode. I wanted to
raise one issue that I think was received very well by most
members of the subcommittee, and beyond; the USDA announcement
last month of the 20 new RC&D areas that would be covered by
new projections. There are dozens of counties as I look at the
list here in those areas, dozens of counties that will benefit
from those new projects.
My question is, what level of funding is needed to fully
support this program and to take in these new projects?
Mr. Rey. The administration's budget request provides
funding for all of the existing areas including the 20 that
were approved earlier this year.
It does not include funding for any new projects for fiscal
year 2002. And we can provide you with the data. I think it
probably would require about $66 million in total to fund both
the existing projects--66.4 million, my memory only goes to the
first two decimal points--66.4 million to fully fund existing
projects as well as to favorably respond to the new proposals
that we anticipate during 2002, some 20 or so new projects for
that year.
Mr. Bonilla. I have a couple more questions I will submit
for the record.
I will yield once again now to Ms. Kaptur.
Reprogramming Funds
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, you
talked about the potential to reprogram funds within the Agency
in the event that you could not make the $30.8 million in
administrative efficiencies.
How would you reprogram? Where would you reprogram from in
order not to hurt conservation operations?
Mr. Rey. Well, I think that your question was if we don't
achieve those efficiencies, will there be a shortfall in
Conservation Operations? And our expectation is that at this
point, no. The question would be if we don't make the
efficiencies, and therefore have higher administrative costs,
where would we secure the additional funding?
The short answer is that I don't know that I could tell you
that right now, because that would be the kind of decision that
we would be looking at mid-year, but it would be dependent on
where we have unexpended balances. But I can assure you, based
on the committee's reprogramming requirements, that you would
have to approve whatever we suggested by way of fund transfers
to meet any shortfalls that occur.
Ms. Kaptur. Those fund transfers would come out of
conservation operations?
Mr. Rey. Not necessarily. If again, if we had to make a
reprogramming request to the committee, the reprogramming
request would probably be one that looked across our program
accounts to see where we had unexpended balances that we didn't
think we would expend by year end in money that was 2003 money.
Those would be the first priorities.
As I said, I don't know that I could predict that for you
right now. But clearly if we do get to that point--and in
parenthesis, I hope and don't see that we do--but if we do get
to that point, any reprogramming will be before you as a
committee, and not something we do as a matter of course.
Conservation Operations--A priority
Ms. Kaptur. Well, I just wanted to urge you--I read your
testimony and your involvement in the proposals for the farm
bill and overall departmental policy and so forth. When you
look at the amount of money that the American people are
shelling out across this country to keep agriculture propped
up, we don't have a market solution to agriculture here, we
have a government solution. So we are farming the government,
we are not farming the market. As a minimum, we ought to be
getting much more in terms of conservation for those dollars
that are going out. I would urge you not to cut in the
conservation area but to find ways, in fact, to use the
billions and billions in support that are coming to the
agricultural sector to exact more in the way of conservation.
And we certainly will look at any follow-up from the Department
on this. On Mr. Walsh's comments and others on this whole issue
of land toxicity, water table penetration by toxics related to
animal feeding, I want to urge you to do whatever you can.
Coming from the Michigan School of Natural Resources, you
understand the connect here that Michigan is draining on Ohio.
So I will get real regional about this.
Impacts of Animal Feeding Operations
If we look at the CAFO operations in cattle and dairy that
have been placed on that western side of Michigan now, what is
happening is the water table drains into my district and
adjacent to my district. And counties like Williams County at
the Michigan-Ohio line are really deeply worried about their
aquifers. At the same time, we have a number of Dutch dairies
now locating in western Ohio, and they are large. And they are
acquiring just enough cattle--I am trying to remember what the
number is. If the regulation start at 1,000--then they are
buying 999. I mean, this is what is going on in western Ohio.
My question to you is, how do we work with RC&D so as
rather than getting a fight--let me give you one other example.
We have got Buckeye Egg now, a German firm that can't do
business in Germany because it was such a bad actor. Ohio
welcomed them. They are now the largest egg producer in Ohio,
and Ohio is a leading egg producing State. But the problem is
they are an enormous polluter. So our State attorney general
has Buckeye Egg in court right now, and we have got all of
these environmental problems that attend to this particular
facility. That is poultry. I mentioned dairy earlier.
How do we work with you? How does my region work with you?
It is Michigan, it is Ohio. How can we be proactive, to get
RC&D out there in front, to help us find a better answer?
First, to test the water systems that are being polluted--how
bad is it--but then to develop a management plan before all of
those places open up? Could you enlighten me as to the system
that currently exists so we can be more proactive, rather than
just ending up in court, which is what our attorney general has
done on this Buckeye Egg situation. How do we use the tools
that you currently have to help us in our region, not harm the
water, clean up the mess that has already been generated, and
not allow the soils to become toxic? How do we use the tools
that you have to do this?
Mr. Rey. The two initiatives that will contribute the most
to the problem that you are describing are the CAFO regulations
that EPA and we are working on together to develop an
understandable and farmer-friendly regulatory tool that doesn't
exist at present. And second, the delivery system that we
believe will be provided by the increases in amount and the
utilization for technical assistance to animal feeding
operations combined with EQIP money in the farm bill that is
currently before Congress.
It is our hope that the two of those together will set us
off in a new direction toward addressing what I consider to be
one of the most rapidly developing environmental problems that
we have today; that is, the concentration of operations in the
animal feeding industry.
Ms. Kaptur. I know my time has expired. But I wanted to see
if Mr. Reed wanted to add to the answer, what this means. Do we
have to wait maybe another year? My problem is existing, it has
existed for a while. What do I do while I am waiting for all of
this? And what does the rest of the country do while we wait
for EPA and wait for the CAFO regulations? What do you do now?
Conservation Infrastructure
Mr. Reed. I really don't have anything to add to what
Secretary Rey said, other than you made reference to RC&D maybe
being a tool that we can use. And I would add to that that all
of our partners in this soil and water conservation
infrastructure that we have out there right now are in an
informal way collectively working on those issues. I think we
need to continue to support and nourish that voluntary approach
to dealing with the problem.
Ms. Kaptur. Well, let me just say as you think about this
question, I would appreciate any recommendations for what our
particular region of the country could do while we are waiting
for more advanced development of these regulations and so forth
and the passage of EQIP and so forth to prevent further damage
and to try to remediate the damage that has already been done.
And so any further enlightenment you can provide me there on
existing programs that we can use would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Boyd.
Farm Bill Conservation Programs
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to ask this question to both Secretary Rey and
Chief Reed. As you know we are conferencing a farm bill now, or
about to conference a farm bill. If you were king for a day and
could write the section of the farm bill that applies to
conservation of our natural resources and environment, how
would you do it? What programs would you keep, eliminate,
change, add money to, take money away from? That is a very
simple question. Just what is your vision for how we, for the
next 7 years or 8 years, how we deal with our natural resources
conservation?
Mr. Rey. I find the problem with answering "if you were
king for the day" questions is that you end up spending the
rest of the day in the dungeon.
But I think, generally speaking, both bills have provisions
that are going to take us a long way to improving our
conservation programs. And there are some provisions in the
Senate bill that we prefer over the House language. There are
probably more provisions in the House bill language that at
least in terms of simplicity and flexibility look to us to be
preferable.
But I think the better answer to the question is that
either bill makes such a pronounced advance in conservation
operations that the best thing that can happen is that we
resolve the differences between the two bills quickly and begin
to put the results of that collaboration on the ground as fast
as possible, particularly to respond to developing situations
that Ms. Kaptur has pointed out.
Beyond that, I would be happy to share with you the side-
by-side comparisons that we have. It is not a situation where
one or the other body's bill is, unfortunately, superior to the
other. There are provisions in each that are worthy of support.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Rey, I got the answer that I
suspected I would get. And that is okay.
Chief Reed.
Mr. Reed. If I were King for a day. I would make sure that
there are no unfunded mandates coming out of the process. And
as a part of that, I would make sure that the full costs of
carrying out these programs that are authorized are provided
for in some way.
Mr. Boyd. But nothing jumps out in terms of the programs
themselves that you would add or take away--you think the----
Mr. Reed. I think in both the House and Senate versions,
there is a good mix. And I think we can use whatever comes out
of what is there now and integrate it in such a way so that we
can make it all farmer-friendly. So I think it is good.
Mr. Rey. There is one provision in the Senate bill that I
think is worthy of serious consideration by the House. And that
is the reauthorization of a 501(c)(3) foundation to work with
NRCS to bring private sector dollars, which are not currently
flowing into the system, into conservation operations. And it
would be, I believe, very helpful if the House were inclined to
entertain the Senate's vision there, with whatever changes you
think are necessary, and give us the opportunity to create that
foundation and to begin to expand on the public-private sector
collaborations that we already have in the conservation area.
Because I think with some creative activity, we can bring some
dollars into conservation operations that aren't there right
now. And they would not be taxpayer dollars in this case.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you. May I follow up with one additional
question for Chief Reed?
Mr. Bonilla. Go right ahead, Mr. Boyd.
Florida Farm Foundation
Mr. Boyd. Chief, there is a program that you all have been
involved in, and I am not sure which section it is under.
However, there has been a collaboration with a group called
AFAM which is part of the Florida Farm Foundation which--you
are familiar with that.
Mr. Reed. I am.
Mr. Boyd. Would you comment on the effectiveness of that?
Also I understand there have been some internal problems in
AFAM. How is that affecting your thought process about our
involvement in that?
Mr. Reed. Mr. Boyd, the details I don't know. But we have
Larry Clark, who is our deputy chief of science and technology,
leading that effort. If you would like, we can ask him to come
up and respond to the question, or we can follow up and provide
information for you for the record.
Mr. Boyd. Maybe we can do some of both. It would be great
if the Chairman would allow me the time.
Mr. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Boyd.
The AFAM project is one that we started a year or so ago
and has been producing some very innovative approaches to
dealing with some of the animal waste issues in Florida and
North Carolina. We think there is a great deal of opportunity
to continue that effort to partner with others--non-profits--
who can carry out this kind of activity.
The problems and issues in the organization have pretty
much been resolved, and we are happy to see the cooperative
effort continue.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you very much.
Mr. Reed, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Reed. No.
Mr. Boyd. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask Secretary Rey to
submit for the record the side-by-side comparisons of the House
and Senate--your part of those titles.
Mr. Rey. What you will find, it is a provision of the
summaries side by side.
Mr. Boyd. No recommendations?
Mr. Rey. No.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. Boyd. I do believe we have one
remaining round of questions from Ms. Kaptur based on our
informal survey of members. I believe that that will be the
final round, Mr. Rey and Mr. Reed. Ms. Kaptur.
PRIVATE LAND CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rey, if I were to
go into an audience of people who are not trained in your
profession, and I were to try to simply explain to them how the
jurisdiction you cover is different than the Department of
Interior in terms of forestlands as well as land conservation,
how would you describe the extent of coverage of the activities
over which you have jurisdiction versus the Department of
Interior? What about numbers of acreage of forestland, land
held in the public domain versus the private domain,
conservation programs? How would you give people a sense of the
scale of that?
Mr. Rey. What I have described to people is that as far as
private land conservation activities are concerned, that is the
almost exclusive domain of the Department of Agriculture.
There are limited programs of a specific nature, for
instance wildlife-related programs, that are administered
through Interior. But for broad purposes, if you are talking
about private land conservation, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service is the government's leader and occupies
most of the field in that regard.
With regard to Federal lands, what I have told people is
that, generally speaking, the Federal Government manages on
behalf of the American citizens roughly a third of our Nation's
lands. There are four major land managing agencies that have
the responsibility for that estate. Three of them are in the
Department of the Interior, one in the Department of
Agriculture.
In the Department of the Interior, two of the agencies have
specialized holdings, the National Park Service and the Fish
and Wildlife Service, which manage the national park system and
the national wildlife refuge system.
The third is the Bureau of Land Management which manages
what remains, which we call the public domain, which has not
been reserved either for the parks, wildlife refuges, or in the
case of the Department of Agriculture, the national forest
system.
And that is pretty much how we describe it. Each of the
agencies has a somewhat different purpose. The purpose of the
Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service are the most
closely comparable in the sense that both agencies have a
mandate to accommodate a variety of uses as they go about
managing the lands to which they are entrusted.
The Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service have a
somewhat narrower mandate: in the first case, the enhancement
of wildlife populations through the management of the refuge
system; in the second case, the preservation of America's parks
for the enjoyment of the public, not only the American public,
but citizens of the world.
PRIVATE VS. PUBLIC LAND TREE COVER
Ms. Kaptur. If you were to fly over from coast to coast and
look at the tree cover in the United States and ask yourself,
in the public domain, how much of that tree cover is managed by
the Forest Service versus the Department of Interior, where is
the acreage greater?
Mr. Rey. The acreage is by far greater with the Forest
Service. The Bureau of Land Management lands tend to be lower
elevation, dry grasslands. There are exceptions. I am speaking
in broad generalities now. The forests, which were the origin
of the national forest system, were created in large part at
the turn of the century by taking higher elevation areas with
forest cover and removing them from the public domain to place
them in forest reserves for, at that time, two primary
purposes: to provide for watersheds and water supply stability,
to provide for a sustainable supply of fiber resources.
So if you are flying east to west, at the point that you
are flying over the eastern forest today, the acreage you are
looking at, predominately although not exclusively, is
privately owned lands. Once you cross the 100th meridian, you
are looking at grasslands. Once you get into the inner mountain
area past the front range of the Rocky Mountains, what you see
forested is predominately in Forest Service ownership. What you
see in grasslands is predominately either private land or
Bureau of Land Management public domain land.
And then finally, once you reach the West Coast, you cross
the Sierras, the forested acreage that you are seeing is a mix
of Forest Service and private land. The unforested acreage is
predominately private agricultural lands.
Ms. Kaptur. And if you were to put it on a percent scale of
those--let's talk about the forested or tree-covered lands over
which you have jurisdiction. What percent of the total would be
within USDA's and Interior's jurisdiction?
Mr. Rey. I think it is, roughly speaking, three-quarters
Interior, one-quarter USDA; because, by far and away, the
Bureau of Land Management owns the largest estate.
Ms. Kaptur. Okay. All right. I am going to ask you to
provide some of those numbers for the record, talking about
crop land, grazing land, forestland, and so I can get a clear
picture in my mind of the overall breakdown.
[The information follows:]
The Forest Service manages approximately 192 million acres of
public land--an area about 110 percent the size of the State of Texas--
located in 44 States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. These lands
are known collectively as the National Forest System (NFS).
Approximately 110 million NFS acres are classified as rangeland,
although a large portion of these lands are also forested. Of the
rangeland acres, 92 million are classified as grazing allotments of
which 84 million acres are active allotments. National Grasslands are a
separate component and occupy 831,000 acres.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
LAND COVERED BY CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Ms. Kaptur. I am also going to ask you to provide some
numbers for the record on the various conservation programs
that you administer to incorporate the amount of acres and the
kind of technical assistance available to people, so I can get
a handle on the magnitude of this and who holds responsibility
for those lands.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
BIOBASED FUELS
Ms. Kaptur. Though the Forest Service itself is not under
our jurisdiction, they manage one of the largest vehicle fleets
in the Government of the United States. And I am very
interested in the biofuels issue and the use of forest residue
for the production of biofuels.
I want to ask you, how much do you know about the
composition of vehicles within the Forest Service; to what
extent any of them use biofuels, ethanol, biodiesel, in either
acquiring vehicles that use them or currently vehicles under
their jurisdiction using that type of fuel? In other words, can
you be a partner as a part of the Department of Agriculture in
our efforts to really promote biofuel production through our
national energy policy and through the farm bill?
Mr. Rey. Clearly we can be and want to be a partner in
promoting the use, the development and use of biofuels. And if
you look at the Forest Service budget, you will see additional
recommendations for research appropriations in the development
of biofuels.
I cannot today tell you whether and what the percentage of
the Forest Service fleet uses biofuels, but I will get you that
information for the record.
One of the things about the Forest Service fleet, as
opposed to the inventory of vehicles nationwide, is that our
fleet tends to run more heavily toward 4-wheel drive and
utility vehicles, pickup trucks, because of the terrain that
they are required to traverse. And to the extent that we are
focusing more of the effort on developing mixed fuel vehicles
in the general passenger vehicle category, that won't be
necessarily something that our fleet will accommodate to the
extent that passenger fleet as a whole will be. But I can get
you specific numbers.
[The information follows:]
The Forest Service (FS) owns and operates a fleet of approximately
19,000 vehicles, which includes heavy equipment, off-road vehicles,
snow machines, boats and airplanes. Passenger carrying vehicles make up
approximately 3 percent of the total fleet and work trucks comprise
another 86 percent of the fleet. Included in the FS vehicle fleet are
more than 150 alternative fuel vehicles. The alternative fuels used in
these vehicles include compressed natural gas, liquid propane gas,
propane gas, methanol, ethanol and electricity. FS also operates more
than 4,000 vehicles with diesel engines that can run on bio-diesel
products. FS uses on an annual basis approximately 60,000 gallons of
alternative fuels in its fleet vehicles. Executive Order 13031--Federal
Alternative Fueled Vehicle Leadership--requires that 75 percent of
nonexempt vehicles acquired by Federal agencies for use in metropolitan
statistical areas with populations of 250,000 or more use alternative
fuels. Approximately 90 percent of the nonexempt vehicles FS acquires
for use in these areas are alternative fuel vehicles. The remaining FS
vehicles are associated with law enforcement or fire activities, are in
lesser populated areas, or meet other conditions that exempt them from
the Order. Long-range acquisition plans include the annual purchase of
more than 50 alternative fuel vehicles.
Ms. Kaptur. I come from a district that makes a lot of
truck transmissions. I would urge you to engage with those in
the administration who are involved in this new freedom car. We
had the old partnership for a new generation of vehicles. And I
really think that you have something to contribute here. And
certainly as we clear residue from many of our forests, and you
have this enormous passenger power for fuel within your
service, I think that you can be part of the solution. I would
urge you to look at that at the highest levels of your
responsibility.
URBAN SPRAWL
I want to move to the issue of urban sprawl. If I might ask
you or Mr. Reed, what programs you have in place to assist
local, State, and regional efforts to effectively deal with
urban sprawl?
Ohio, as you know has more urban areas than anywhere, and
farming is our largest industry, farming and food processing.
We really do have enormous conflicts. We are sort of at the
point of making final choices as to what the land will look
like 100 years from now, and it is actually a very painful
process.
I am just curious to what extent NRCS is involved in
assisting communities and States in this regard. What types of
programs do you have underway or are considering to help
provide the technical assistance and help for township trustees
and land conservers and conservation groups that are trying to
get a handle on this and how to be proactive in establishing
land trusts and development rights and so forth, farmland
protection? How do you deal with this?
FARMLAND PROTECTION--FOREST LEGACY PROGRAMS
Mr. Rey. The two premiere programs that we operate are the
Farmland Protection Program, and the Forest Legacy Program.
Both programs provide financial assistance on a cost-share
basis to purchase easements of farm and forestlands,
predominately those that are threatened by urban sprawl. And
those are program areas where both in the case of the Forest
Service fiscal 2003 budget, we are recommending significant
increases in funding.
Ms. Kaptur. How much is that, please?
Mr. Rey. We are recommending $70 million for fiscal 2003,
which would be roughly a 20 percent--18 percent increase over
2002 levels. Additionally, both the Farmland Protection Program
and the Forest Legacy Program are scheduled for healthy
increases in the farm bill that is currently in conference.
Ms. Kaptur. What are you asking for in the Farmland
Protection Program, and is that an increase over last year?
Mr. Rey. In the Senate bill, the provision is for $150
million in 2002, $250 million in 2003, $400 million in 2004,
$450 million in 2005, and $500 million in 2006. That is a 5-
year bill, so that is as far as it goes.
The House bill provides funding at $50 million per year
through 2011. That is a 10-year bill. So it provides monies
spread over a longer time horizon. And what did we spend this
past year on farmland protection? This past year we spent $17.5
million in farmland protection. So either bill represents a
pretty dramatic increase in the Farmland Protection Program.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. Is there any summary that is
available from the Department as to how those Farmland
Protection-Forest Legacy dollars have been used over the years?
I don't need a lengthy report, but to get a sense of how those
dollars have been used, so one can talk about it intelligently
to the public, which States have participated, which have not,
what you expect from the States or localities. I know in our
own State, one of the tragedies is Ohio seems to be not leading
but following the pack on this. They didn't even have
legislation in place, and so even if you had regions of a State
that were interested in participating, if the State government
wasn't interested, you couldn't do anything regionally, which
was a great frustration of ours in our part of the State. And
the State finally got its act together, but they are very late.
And so any enlightenment you can provide there will be
greatly appreciated.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
WATERSHED PROGRAMS
Ms. Kaptur. I also support my colleagues on their concerns
about the watershed programs. I think those are all of my
questions, and we thank you so very, very much. We hope that
your tenure is a very successful one, and we ought to get you
written up in the Michigan Alumni Magazine if it hasn't already
been done, a famous graduate of the School of Natural
Resources.
I wanted to say to Chief Reed, it is always a pleasure to
have you here, and your thoroughness and your professionalism
and your 81 percent grade are a tribute to the fine work that
has been done by NRCS over the years. And we hope you come back
very often here. We enjoy having you.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur. We have now been joined
by Mr. Nethercutt, so I will now yield.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the
panel, welcome. I apologize to you for being late. We have had
three hearings going on. I know the Chairman does also, and
other members, so thank you for being here. I am sorry to have
missed your testimony, but I have been told what you said, so I
am ready to ask a couple of questions that I hope will be of
interest to you.
AIR QUALITY
My understanding is there has been discussion in the whole
area of conservation relating to water and land conservation. I
would ask anyone on the panel, to what extent do you believe
air quality should also be a subject of concern as it relates
to conservation? Out our way, we have the issue of stubble
burn. That is a controversial issue. But what can you tell us
about what the Department is doing with respect to the subject
of air quality, and to what extent is there collaboration going
on with interested parties as it relates to air quality
conservation as opposed to land and water conservation?
Mr. Reed. Mr. Nethercutt, as you know, the Chief of NRCS
serves as chairman of the USDA Air Quality Task Force. We have
a very, very strong task force. I would like to just cover two
or three major accomplishments of the task force.
First, we have developed priorities for research. The
research priorities focus primarily on particulate matter, PM
210, PM 2.5, as well as issues dealing with animal odors and
emissions. We are in the process of pulling together a good
solid set of recommendations centered around voluntary
incentive-based air compliance programs in working with EPA,
and we have also recommended a burning policy. Also we have an
EPA representative on the task force.
Mr. Nethercutt. I appreciate that. It is a difficult issue
out our way. When you are growing crops that are enhanced by
burning but yet you are facing the issue, the very emotional
issue of air quality, and, you know, in stubble burning you see
smoke in the air, and suddenly there is grave concern that
children are going to have asthma attacks and so on. This is an
emotional issue, the issue of burning. Yet notwithstanding
that, it happens about 4 days a year, or has in our State. But
Idaho, to the east of us, is engaged in a burning policy that
sends the smoke our way even though our agriculture industry is
not guilty.
It is a tough issue. I would hope that would be a
coordinated effort and a fair analysis recognizing that there
is an economy here, an ag economy that we have to maintain and
do our best to go to other opportunities for cultivation and
production of crops without burning. I don't think it can be
done overnight. Field burning is a tough issue that I know you
and probably members of the entire panel are familiar.
Mr. Rey. In some parts of the country, the air quality
implications of agricultural operations are one of the fastest
growing areas where we get requests for technical assistance. I
think one of the benefits of the upcoming farm bill allocations
will be the ability to provide some of that assistance either
through our technical assistance accounts or through EQIP.
Mr. Nethercutt. Am I still able to ask another question?
Mr. Bonilla. Go right ahead.
Mr. Nethercutt. I don't want to hold you up.
Mr. Bonilla. You are the final member to be recognized. I
think Ms. Kaptur also has one more question.
THIRD-PARTY VENDORS
Mr. Nethercutt. I am sorry to delay. Let me ask the panel
what your thoughts are on contracting with certified third
parties to provide technical assistance to the land owners for
certain practices.
I have heard some concerns that technical assistance is
sometimes delayed to complete projects such as inspection prior
to timely seeding of CRP to recover crop. Delayed seeding,
particularly in arid regions, increases the risk of a poor
stand, and both landowners and taxpayers may have to provide
additional funds to successfully complete the project,
something that you all have had to address in your particular
work. Is it something you would consider, is it a bad idea, a
good idea, what is your sense of it?
Mr. Reed. There are several issues, Mr. Nethercutt. Number
1, the issue of third-party vendors is one that we have been
participating in to one degree or the other for a long, long
period of time. As you know, there are provisions in both
versions of the farm bill for a more extensive use of third-
party providers to help with the technical assistance workload.
And we are getting geared up to do just that.
Also you mentioned CRP. FSA is in the process right now of
conducting a pilot testing for the use of third-party vendors.
And we, of course, will take that information and incorporate
it in what we do as we get geared up to implement the third-
party provisions that will come out of the 2002 farm bill.
We think that the only way we will be able to get the work
done is to expand our use of third-party providers.
LAND OWNERS IMPORTANT DECISION MAKERS
Mr. Nethercutt. Thanks. I know in your statement, your
written statement that you made mention that the most important
members of the conservation partnership are the people who own
the land and make the decisions for its use. I would just
conclude by saying I agree with you. As we look at CRP versus
continuing land in production, CRP has a negative impact on
rural communities that are under stress alone in terms of
economic growth and continuation. When the land goes into CRP,
the seed man and the farm implement guy and everybody suffers.
Conservation of land is important. But conservation of
productive land in production is also important as we keep
farmers on the land and keep them growing crops as opposed to
the alternatives. So it is a tough equation. I happen to like
the House bill on the Conservation Reserve Program allocations
as opposed to the Senate just for that reason. We need to have
production agriculture flourish in this country, as well as the
conservation side of agriculture.
So, with that, I thank all of you for your commitment to
the government and your assistance to agriculture.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. Nethercutt. I understand Ms.
Kaptur has one area.
REPROGRAMMING AUTHORITY
Ms. Kaptur. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up on this
whole question of reprogramming within the Agency. For the
record, we will just ask if you can please provide the scope of
your reprogramming authority under NRCS.
Mr. Rey. Sure. We can provide you that.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bonilla. Mr. Goode.
Mr. Goode. Can I have one more question?
Mr. Bonilla. Absolutely.
DAM REHABILITATION PRIORITIZATION
Mr. Goode. To Mr. Rey. We were talking about the dam
rehabilitation fund that has 11 million in it. Now, you are
spending the money during this fiscal year. Who makes the
decision on which dams get rehabilitated? You can't
rehabilitate too many with that 11 million.
Mr. Rey. Right. The act as passed in 2000 gives us criteria
to use in making the prioritization of which dams are first in
the queue for rehabilitation. And the ultimate decision, I
think, is the Chief of the NRCS.
Mr. Reed. Basically we have a diverse committee of folks
from the outside that make recommendations, and we try to treat
the worst first.
Mr. Goode. Yeah. That diverse committee, who is on that
diverse committee?
Mr. Reed. Primarily the NRCS State conservationists or his
or her representatives from the various States, plus we have--
--
Mr. Goode. So it is at least 50 on the committee?
Mr. Reed. No. We don't have watersheds in all of the 50
States.
Mr. Goode. How many are on the committee?
Mr. Reed. I don't know the exact number.
Mr. Goode. 35?
Mr. Reed. 16 States.
Mr. Goode. How much is it costing you to administer this?
Mr. Reed. I can't tell you that off of the top of my head.
Mr. Goode. Not even a ballpark?
Mr. Reed. Well, we have three people working.
Mr. Goode. It is no more than 2, maybe 1 or 2 percent of
it.
Mr. Reed. It is more than that when you add up all of the
administrative costs associated with contracting and
procurement and those kind of things. But the basic leadership
to make sure we establish priorities of plan and scale, we have
the equivalent of about 2-\1/2\ staff years invested in that.
Mr. Rey. I think it is also generally a fair proposition to
state that the highest priority in rehabilitating dams is where
there are downstream threats to humans and property.
Mr. Goode. I agree.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. Goode.
I am delighted this morning that we have had ample time for
every member of the subcommittee to ask all of their questions
that they have brought to this hearing. They are juggling
several hearings, as Mr. Nethercutt pointed out. This is the
appropriation hearing season and we get it done somehow,
bounding around, doing votes and all of the other things we
need to get done as well. I appreciate you all being here
today. You helped us tremendously in getting this process
started.
Mr. Rey, Mr. Reed, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Kaplan, we
appreciate your time and we look forward to working with you as
we move forward to put this bill together. Thank you very much.
This hearing stands adjourned until tomorrow.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 6, 2002.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MARKETING AND REGULATORY
PROGRAMS
WITNESSES
WILLIAM T. HAWKS, UNDER SECRETARY
BOBBY R. ACORD, ADMINISTRATOR, ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION
SERVICE
A.J. YATES, ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
JOANN WATERFIELD, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS
PROGRAMS, GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION
STEPHEN B. DEWHURST, BUDGET OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bonilla. The subcommittee will come to order.
I am delighted today to be holding this budget hearing for
the marketing and regulatory programs at USDA. The agencies
under marketing and regulatory programs include the men and
women who are charged with keeping America's agriculture safe
from foreign pests and diseases, ensuring that agriculture
markets are operating with the greatest efficiency by promoting
fair and competitive trade practices that benefit consumers and
American agriculture.
Introduction of Witnesses
We have with us today Mr. Bill Hawks, the Under Secretary
for Marketing and Regulatory Programs; Mr. Bobby Acord, the
Administrator for the Animal and Plant Health Information
Service; Mr. A.J. Yates, the Administrator for the Agriculture
Marketing Service; and JoAnn Waterfield, Deputy Administrator
for Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
And, of course, we always welcome Mr. Dewhurst, who wasn't with
us recently.
We understand that you had a little rough going over on the
other side of the Hill the other day. We read about that,
Steve. We have fun over here, and we welcome you back.
We have read your statements and have entered them into the
record. We will be delighted to hear from all of you in just a
moment, but before we begin, I would like to yield to my
friend, Ms. Kaptur, for any comments that she may have before
we continue.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to welcome
our witnesses and to say that you have some of the most
important responsibilities in our country. We appreciate your
service, and we are very anxious to hear your testimony this
morning, and we want to help you do your job better. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you very much, Ms. Kaptur.
Mr. Hawks, we will go ahead and begin with you. We
understand others would like to make some opening remarks and
again we have entered all of your statements into the record.
We will be delighted to hear from all of you this morning. We
will begin with Mr. Hawks.
Opening Statement
Mr. Hawks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. It is indeed a pleasure for me to be here to discuss
the budget for the Marketing and Regulatory Programs for the
2003 fiscal year. We do have the budgets for Agriculture
Marketing Service, AMS; Animal and Health Plant Inspection
Service, APHIS; and the Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration, GIPSA.
Joining me today also is my deputy from the great State of
Texas; Jim Butler is sitting right behind me. And as you have
already said, we have A.J. Yates from AMS, Bobby Acord from
APHIS and JoAnn Waterfield representing GIPSA.
I would like to start by giving you my philosophy, and that
is working together--and I have worked with my agencies to
draft goals for which we can be held accountable--I intend to
see that MRP works. Those goals are, one, building broader
bridges. We will increase cooperation and strategic
partnerships with farmers, ranchers, States, foreign
governments, congressional offices and other interested parties
to ensure that our policies benefit producers and consumers
alike.
Second, we are intent on moving more product. We will
facilitate expanded domestic and international market
opportunities for U.S. agriculture products, including value-
enhanced products and products of biotechnology.
Third, we are investing in infrastructure. An agriculture
that is healthy both biologically and economically is
marketable agriculture.
Fourth, we believe in growing our people. We will make a
concerted effort to recruit, recognize and reward
accomplishments and inspire current and future leaders within
MRP.
Last, but certainly not least, is selling agriculture as a
profession. We will creatively market the vital role that
agriculture plays in all Americans' lives to assist our effort
to recruit, retain the highest caliber work force for MRP and
USDA.
The funding sources for our agency that we are proposing
today are funded both by taxpayers and beneficiaries of the
program services. The total budget is nearly $1.5 billion, over
$500 million of which is funded by user fees paid by the
beneficiaries of the services.
On the appropriations side, APHIS is requesting $395.4
million, of which $13.2 million is for building and facilities.
AMS is requesting $105.2 million, and GIPSA is requesting $42.9
million.
The Agricultural Marketing Service, or AMS, activities are
an integral component of the USDA-wide effort to assist the
U.S. agricultural industry in marketing their products and in
finding ways to improve their profitability. Many of the
programs administered by AMS are aimed at building cooperative
and strategic partnerships with the agriculture community and
State institutions that support it.
Additionally, AMS provides oversight to research and
promotion programs that allow producers, handlers, processors
or importers to collaborate to solve marketing problems and to
increase sales domestically and abroad. USDA continues to
believe that the National Commodity Research and Promotion
Programs offer opportunities to maintain, develop and expand
markets.
AMS is requesting much-needed additional funding to
maintain the viability of the Federal seed programs and to
bolster exports through international market price reporting.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, as you well
know, the primary mission is to manage issues involving animal
and plant health, conflicts with wildlife, environmental
stewardship and animal well-being, and I am certainly pleased
to see the beetle on the wall back here today.
Together with the States and industries, APHIS protects and
promotes U.S. agricultural health, preserving and expanding
domestic and international markets for U.S. agricultural
products.
Recent events have highlighted the need to protect the
security of our agriculture production sector and our food
supply. However, well before September the 11th and long before
foot-and-mouth disease crippled the British agricultural
sector, APHIS had been fully engaged in activities to detect
and exclude agricultural health threats and ensure preparedness
and appropriate infrastructure to address pest and disease
emergencies that occur.
We have indeed encountered emergencies. Just in the last
year alone the Department released $336 million in funds from
the Commodity Credit Corporation to address outbreaks of
disease. Asian long-horned beetle, chronic wasting disease,
citrus canker, karnal bunt, Medflies, plum pox, pseudorabies
and tuberculosis.
The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration's mission is to facilitate the marketing of
livestock, meat, poultry, cereals, oilseed and related
agricultural products and to promote fair and competitive trade
for the benefit of the consumers of American agriculture.
It helps move more product, both domestically and abroad,
by investing in domestic infrastructure that supports marketing
within the grain, poultry, livestock and meat industries.
GIPSA's Federal Grain Inspection Service is requesting
increased funding that will allow it to expand its newly
established biotechnology programs and to keep pace with the
rapid introduction of new value-added products, whether
developed through biotechnology or conventional breeding.
This concludes my statement, and I look forward to working
together as we proceed in the 2003 budget appropriations
process. We believe the proposed funding amounts and sources of
funding are vital to providing the infrastructure to protect
American agriculture from pests and disease and for moving more
product, especially for increasing exports to foreign markets.
It will provide the level of services expected for our
customers, the farmers, the ranchers and the agriculture
marketing industry and consumers.
We are happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Hawks follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. Hawks. We do appreciate the
photo you sent us of the beagle. It adds a lot to the room, and
we appreciate that.
Mr. Yates, did you have some opening comments?
Agricultural Marketing Service Opening Statement
Mr. Yates. Yes. Thank you.
It is a pleasure to be here, and I certainly agree with
Congresswoman Kaptur in the opening statement that she made
about the importance of the Agriculture Marketing Service to
agriculture.
I am a farmer from California and I had the opportunity of
working in the California Department of Agriculture for 9
years. I know that the programs that AMS provides to
agriculture are critically important in helping them move their
products into not only the national marketplace, but also the
international marketplace.
We do that in a variety of ways, and naturally price
reporting, whether it be on livestock or in a market, on fruits
and vegetables and other commodities, is of critical importance
in the ability of farmers to move their product on a timely
basis.
In those, we have our research and promotion programs which
are very important for the producers to be able to promote
their product to consumers, both in the United States and
internationally, as well as marketing orders which help our
growers develop standards where the consumer knows what they
are buying when they buy it from long distances.
We also provide a service of Section 32 in helping farmers
with surplus commodities, at the same time providing very
nutritious food for our schoolchildren, as well as needy people
throughout the United States.
Farmers markets and direct marketing are critically
important to our small farmers, who represent 90 percent of the
farmers in the United States. We work closely with them. I had
experience for 9 years working with farmers markets in
California, and I know what they do for agriculture.
We also provide a service of pesticide detection programs,
which helps not only protect the food supply, but it also gives
us the ability to register the tools that we need to produce a
nutritious and healthy product.
I appreciate the opportunity of being here today, and I
would be more than willing to answer any questions you might
have.
[The statement of Mr. Yates follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. Yates.
Ms. Waterfield.
GIPSA Opening Statement
Ms. Waterfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Briefly, I just
appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I want to thank the
subcommittee for the support it has shown GIPSA in the past. I
will defer to the comments that my colleague, Mr. Shipman, has
already submitted to this committee; and I will be happy to
answer any questions put forward by the committee. Thank you.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Shipman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bonilla. Mr. Acord.
Mr. Acord. I have submitted a statement for the record, Mr.
Chairman. I have no further comments other than I appreciate
the opportunity to work with the committee on the 2003
appropriation.
[The statement of Mr. Acord follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Proposed Language Change, CCC Authority
Mr. Bonilla. Mr. Hawks, I would like to begin with an issue
here that is apparently a policy change in the budget request.
That is a proposal to delete the Secretary's emergency
authority to use the Commodity Credit Corporation, which, as we
all know, is CCC, to finance emergency pest and disease
outbreaks. This authority has been in place since 1984, and it
was this subcommittee that provided this authority. The
proposed language would give the Secretary the authority to use
CCC only for an emergency that was not funded out of the CCC in
the previous fiscal year. I want to learn how this authority
would work, so I ask you to indulge me for just a second.
If I understand the proposal correctly, funds to combat the
Asian long-horned beetle, which was funded out of CCC in fiscal
2002, would not be eligible for CCC funding under the proposed
language in fiscal year 2003. Is that correct?
Mr. Hawks. Yes, sir, that is correct. The proposal that we
presented suggests that after the emergencies are declared,
they should be shifted to appropriated funds.
Mr. Bonilla. Would the language allow you to seek funding
to combat the longhorn beetle in fiscal year 2004?
Mr. Hawks. I am going to defer to Mr. Dewhurst on that one.
Mr. Dewhurst. There is money in the budget to deal with the
current outbreaks that we know about. If there were new
outbreaks in different locations or under different
circumstances, I believe we would use the emergency authority
to deal with those new outbreaks. I think that is the way the
budget is set up.
Mr. Bonilla. So if there was a major outbreak of longhorn
beetle in fiscal year 2003, for example, and the cost exceeded
the funding levels, this will be appropriated under this
proposal. Are you suggesting then that you would have to go to
that emergency designation?
Mr. Dewhurst. If we had a new outbreak in a different
place, I believe we would use the emergency authority.
What we have in the budget is money for the known
outbreaks--Chicago and New York, as I recall. We would use the
appropriated money for those concerns.
Mr. Bonilla. I just want to state for the record that this
proposal would be a significant change in the way we have
responded to pest and disease outbreaks in the past. History
shows that the current method of response has worked pretty
well so far. USDA is committed to eradicating several pest and
disease outbreaks that were declared emergencies by the
Secretary, and we will work with you to ensure that you have
the resources available to you to complete the job.
This budget proposal is something we definitely want to
bring to everyone's attention at this point.
Mr. Hawks. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add to that, and
say thank you for your commitment to help us address those
needs that we do have. I certainly appreciate that.
Mr. Bonilla. At this time I am going to yield to Ms.
Kaptur.
I want to advise folks that we are expected to have a
Journal vote shortly after 10 o'clock. We might have to take a
quick break at that time. I would hope that one of my
colleagues can get back here and take the Chair for a moment so
we can have as much continuity as possible during this
interruption.
Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Thank you
all for your testimony.
Under Secretary Hawks, you struck a real chord with me in
the beginning of your testimony where you talk about selling
agriculture as a profession. With the new eye that you have on
Washington, I would like to invite you to go look at the
agriculture exhibit at the American History Museum and see if
you were a young person 17 years old, if you would ever
consider agriculture as a profession if you looked at it.
I think that as we are redoing some of the buildings here
in Washington for agriculture, we need to sell agriculture to
the millions of visitors that come here.
You talk about biotech, and we know the plant genetic work
that is being done and all of the work. Here is a brochure on
ethanol. Now, what is going on around this country to move us
into a new emerging future based on agriculture? We have to
make this field exciting to the youth of this country, and
those exhibits are great historically, but they do not give a
sense of the contemporary nature of agriculture.
If you go into the computer exhibits, the kids are all over
there, and I think our private companies could be challenged.
If you look at what goes on at Epcot Center down in Florida in
promoting agriculture through the displays that are there, I
would just suggest that as you are wandering around town you
familiarize yourself with the turf here.
You have an ally up here on selling agriculture as a
profession in its full dimension.
Mr. Hawks. Ms. Kaptur, I would like to say to you that this
is my first cut on this--and we did this collectively, setting
these goals. I even suggested that we set that goal of selling
farming. Having spent the last 30-odd years--or actually my
entire life in production agriculture and never serving in
Federal Government until last May, I have a keen interest in
selling agriculture as a profession.
I think it is a great profession, I think it is a noble
profession, just like a lot of other professions that we have;
and I would be delighted to work with you to make sure that we
are displaying and exhibiting it in the appropriate manner that
actually reflects agriculture today. I think if a lot of
younger people who are in college or in high school really
understood what agriculture is all about and how it affects the
lives and livelihood of every person in the world, that we
would have a lot more interest in agriculture; and that is
exactly what we intend to try to do. So I am looking forward to
working with you in whatever capacity we can.
Ms. Kaptur. Well, I hope that you go sit down with the head
of the Smithsonian and tour those buildings. I hope that as we
invest the money in the South Building at agriculture, you
think about the way that it speaks to the public.
You know, we had to fight prior to your service to get the
farmers market over there on the Mall; and all of a sudden
everybody goes, oh, gee, it is successful, oh, surprise,
surprise. Yes, well, those were small steps, but so much more
can be done because this whole city is a museum and people
learn by coming here.
And so thank you for your receptivity. I think Secretary
Veneman probably shares this perspective.
I wanted to say to Mr. Yates that as I listened you
referenced farmers markets in your testimony. But if I look at
the budget, there are no program increases for two activities
important to farmers markets in your budget, the Wholesale
Farmers and Alternative Market Development Program and the
Payments to States and Possessions Program. I merely point that
out to you as we fine-tune the submission through this
appropriations process.
It is just amazing some of the work that has been done with
farmers markets, and I have always thought the greatest job in
the world would be to be in charge of networking all the
farmers markets of this country so that the soup produced in
North Carolina could end up on the shelves of our local farmers
market in Toledo and to provide a real alternate marketing
opportunity for a lot of the newer products coming out where
the income goes right to the producer.
And I notice, Mr. Hawks, that you are largely a row-crop
farmer, although you have many other things in your background.
But I have to put in a word for the specialty crop producers
here.
I represent both, and I can tell you that some of these
farmers market programs adjacent to cities are among the most
important ways we can actually get them access to the customer.
And so I hope that you might take another look at those
programs. If you wish to make any comments on your perspective
on farmers markets, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Hawks. Ms. Kaptur, I certainly appreciate the
importance of farmers market; and to share with you, I actually
was in specialty crops. I was in vegetable production. I paid
my way through college by growing peas, butter beans and snap
beans every summer on our farm and selling them at the farmers
market in Memphis, Tennessee. So I have a keen interest and an
understanding of farmers markets.
After coming back from college while I was starting my row-
crop operation, I did the same thing. So I have a keen interest
in farmers markets and a great understanding and appreciation
for them, as well.
Ms. Kaptur. And I can tell you from our part of the
country, our cattle producers, our pork producers, are really
frozen off the shelves of the major supermarkets, and were it
not for opportunities to sell through our farmers markets, they
couldn't reach the public unless they did it out of their own
operation--which is generally in the country, so you don't have
as many customers driving by.
I know my time has expired, but I look forward to the next
round of questions.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur.
We will go to Mr. LaHood and then Mr. Boyd. Mr. LaHood.
Homeland Security
Mr. LaHood. Let me ask, since it is the favored topic of
everyone around here if--have you folks been involved in
discussions with Governor Ridge and his staff in his office, if
there was some sort of national calamity that took place in our
country with respect to food, food supply, origins of food
coming in, are you a part of a team of people that has been
working on a plan to make sure that the food supply in our
country is safe and that you would be working with Governor
Ridge?
What have been your activities with his office in securing
the food supply of our country if something were to happen?
Mr. Hawks. Yes, sir, Congressman, we have. Actually, we
have, within USDA, a homeland security structure. The Deputy
Secretary is the direct interface with Homeland Security, with
Governor Ridge's office. Dr. Elsa Murano, the Under Secretary
for Food Safety, and I cochair Agriculture's Production and
Protection of the Food Supply Council within USDA.
We have numerous working groups working with Governor Ridge
in the Office of Homeland Security. I have primarily been
working on the border issue; Mr. Acord and myself have both
been working very closely with that. Other members of the USDA
team have been working on other specific issues.
So I could, go to great length in talking about border
issues and what we are doing there if you would care to do
that. We do recognize there is a tremendous need for greater
coordination and cooperation between our border agencies to
make certain that we do keep out of this country the things
that we want to keep out of it.
I will share with you that agriculture plays a very vital
role in that process, and I do not take lightly the
responsibility of excluding harmful plant and animal pests and
disease out of this country.
So we are working. We are engaged in that and will be
continue to be engaged.
Mr. LaHood. Is there a plan in place and can you assure us
today that there is a plan in place to make sure that the
homeland food supply is safe and secure in the event that
somebody tries to--we know there are people that want to do in
the United States. We know that the war is being fought not
only in our own country, but in other places of the world. But
with respect to the food supply, can you tell us today that
there is a plan in place and that we are prepared to deal with
any kind of an assault on our food supply?
Mr. Hawks. I can tell you that we do have plans. They are
in place. It is our intent to protect the food supply. There is
no question about it.
I would like to share with you, on 9-11, that very day
before we left our offices, the then-Chief Veterinary Officer
of the United States sent out an e-mail that was circulated,
and the e-mail said for everyone to heighten their vigilance,
because of what happened. And along with that e-mail, he
suggested to share it wherever the recipient chose to.
Would you believe that that same afternoon that e-mail had
circulated back to me through a veterinarian out in the
countryside? So we had plans in place before 9-11. We are
obviously continuing to evaluate our plans in light of the new
environment that we are living in today.
Mr. LaHood. Has your agency or have your folks had a chance
to look at the amendment that was offered in the Senate by
Senator Tim Johnson having to do with the sale of livestock 14
days before? And do you have any comments on that in terms of
your ability implement it if that were to become law, in terms
of really being able to administer that new law; or do you have
any thoughts about that amendment and do you support it? What
is your feeling about all of that?
Mr. Hawks. The administration has not taken a position on
that particular amendment, and I was in a meeting the other day
with some of the administration people that are working
directly on it, and the fact was pointed out that we feel like
Congress should work its will on some of these.
But I will defer to JoAnn Waterfield, who is involved in
the Packers and Stockyards Administration, to talk about the
mechanics of administering that.
Mr. LaHood. Let me just say one thing. This is an important
amendment. And you know as well as I do--that I have a very
high regard for Secretary Veneman. I like her very much and she
is a friend.
But, you know, one of the criticisms of the USDA has been
that they haven't weighed in either in the House or Senate, as
these bills have been marked up--now we are talking about farm
policy for the next several years, and I would be curious to
know at some point how--you folks are going to have to
administer this if this becomes law. This is an important
change, and I have been hearing from a lot of my people about
it, one way or another; and at some point I hope you folks
weigh in on this because you are going to have to administer
it.
Mr. Hawks. I will defer to JoAnn to answer about
administering it.
Johnson Amendment
Ms. Waterfield. Yes, obviously we are following the debates
on the amendment very closely, and we are paying attention to
the language of the bill and also to the debates behind the
bill, so that if the amendment is passed and becomes part of
the farm bill, we understand as much as we can about what
Congress intends to pass.
We will promulgate regulations setting forth how we will
interpret the bill if and when the Johnson amendment is
incorporated into the statute, so that the industries that we
regulate clearly understand what the statute's requirements
are. At the time that we promulgate regulations, the industry,
of course, will have the opportunity to comment on our
interpretation.
Once the regulations are promulgated, though, they will
have the force and effect of law. And we, of course, will
enforce the law. But at the time that the regulations go into
effect, there will be no surprises, so that the industry will
understand exactly what control means from USDA's perspective.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. LaHood.
Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to start by saying, Secretary Hawks, that I have
read your biography, and I very closely identify with many
things that you have done in your life, not only in the
specific tasks that you performed, but of the time in our
country that you performed them; and I am very happy that you
were there.
I want to start by following up with Mr. LaHood's comments
and say that I share the same concerns that he does about the
Johnson amendment. I have been talking to my farmers back home;
and actually they are very mixed about whether they support it
or don't support it. They are not sure, because they don't even
understand it.
I think one of the things that concerns me about a
statement that I just heard from Ms. Waterfield is that you
said ``we will interpret what it means after it goes into
law.'' We need more than that. We need to understand what it
means before it goes into law, so that we can know how to fix
it or whether we ought to do it or not do it. I think maybe
that was where Mr. LaHood was going.
Our people are very confused about it. I think many of the
Members of Congress are very confused about what it does. Does
it inhibit our ability to do the things--contracting, hedging--
that we have been doing up to this point or not?
So I would encourage the administration to weigh in as
well. No question there. I just wanted to make a follow-up on
what Mr. LaHood said.
I would like to ask Mr. Acord a question.
Citrus Canker
We have a high level of interest in a little pest that came
in through the Miami Airport in the early 1990s, brought in
through the APHIS inspection system people. Some tourists
brought it in, or some resident--citrus canker.
Would you, Mr. Acord, update this committee from your
perspective, on how we are managing in that fight against
canker? Are we making progress? Are we losing? What is it
costing us? How much more is it going to cost us?
If you would, I would appreciate that.
Mr. Acord. I would be happy to do that, Mr. Boyd.
The progress we have made in trying to eradicate citrus
canker obviously has been slowed by the lawsuits that we have
had in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties. This stopped the
removal of trees from--within the 1,900-foot barrier that the
scientists have told us is necessary to prevent the spread of
citrus canker.
Notwithstanding that, we still have the ability to remove
infected trees, and this State, through our cooperative
program, is doing that. The legislature in Florida, according
to the Commissioner of Agriculture, is near passing a bill
which would mandate the 1,900-foot barrier, and we would remove
trees within that 1,900-foot barrier under State law.
If that law passes, and there are no further court
challenges, that removes the major barrier to progressing with
the eradication program. As long as we continue to have those
trees infected or exposed in the Miami-Dade-Broward County
areas, we are going to continue to have a source of infection
that will continue to move up--or potentially move up to the
major citrus producing area in Florida.
So our hope is that, through the settlement of the lawsuits
or the passage of a State law, that we will get on with that
tree removal.
One other concern we have, is continuing the ability to
achieve the kind of cooperation that we have with the State;
and we have had a good, cooperative relationship with the
State.
Mr. Boyd. I want to make sure that the committee
understands what the 1,900-foot issue is. Also, I agree with
you, I think the legislature is close to codifying that, and
that will help us.
Mr. Acord. Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyd. However, I hear you saying that you think if we
get the rule codified that you are optimistic about our battle
against canker, and you think it is within our reach in the
near term to wipe it out?
Mr. Acord. I do, near term, it may be an overstatement.
Mr. Boyd. A year?
Mr. Acord. Within a year we should have the trees removed.
We should have the source of inoculum removed, and with good
sanitary practices among the growers. I really think it is
achievable at that point.
Mr. Boyd. Okay.
Mr. Chairman, I noticed the red light, but could I continue
on this issue?
Mr. Bonilla. Go right ahead.
Mr. Boyd. Mr. Acord, it is my understanding that there has
been no problem in the commercial grower industry in terms of
the 1,900-foot rule.
Mr. Acord. That's correct.
Mr. Boyd. By the way, 1,900 feet, for the members of the
committee that don't know, states when you find one infected
tree, you have to draw a circle 1,900 feet around it and
destroy the trees within the circle. That is the only way to
get rid of it. I understand, 260 acres of producing citrus
groves have been destroyed, and our growers have been most
cooperative in their efforts to assist the State and the
Federal Government in eradicating this.
Can you talk to me about why you think they have been
cooperative, and what do you think the cost will be to continue
the eradication program? Also, talk to me about the
compensation issue.
Mr. Acord. One of the major reasons the industry has
cooperated has been the compensation that they have received
for their trees. After all, this is a commercial enterprise.
They do have to continue in business, and the only way they can
do that is with compensation for the lost trees and the lost
income that results from losing those trees. Because the
important thing to recognize here is, this is the first--or one
of the first--diseases that we have ever had to battle where
you remove the host crop.
There is no spray for it. There is no other treatment. You
have to remove the trees. So that is taking away the livelihood
of the producers.
They have been very cooperative because of the compensation
that they have received. Besides that, collectively the
industry recognizes that failure to remove those trees
represents a threat to the entire industry. It has the
potential to devastate the entire State.
On the other hand, the homeowners, over time--those that
have so adamantly opposed the removal of the trees, are going
to lose those trees anyway. If we only remove the ones that are
infected, then it is simply going to spread to the others, and
over time they are going to wind up losing those trees. But it
is hard to convince people when you are taking a 10-year-old
tree out of their yard that we are doing the right thing.
Mr. Boyd. Mr. Acord, assuming that we get the 1,900-foot
rule codified quickly or we win the lawsuit, what do you think
the cost under the current compensation formula will be on the
commercial grower side?
Mr. Acord. My hope is that we would not have to get into
any more commercial compensation. We don't know at this point
and don't have an estimate on what that might be over the next
year or so. If we are able to get in and remove the trees, we
think that any further infection of a commercial grower is
going to be minimal. It is simply a guessing game at this
point.
Mr. Boyd. Mr. Acord, you are very, very optimistic about
that, and as you know, that fund balance is zero now.
Mr. Acord. That is correct.
Mr. Boyd. There are no unpaid commitments, but the citrus
industry folks are very concerned about the future. I would
encourage you to meet with them and talk a little bit about
this. However, I just don't see how we get through this without
some more help, and I just want to make sure that we get you on
board with that.
Mr. Acord. Well, I didn't mean to imply that it is zero.
There is--obviously some. It is just very, very difficult at
this point to estimate what that might be.
I am well aware of the industry's concern about that, sir,
and they never miss an opportunity to make me aware of it.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you very much.
And, Mr. Chairman, that is all I have. But before I quit, I
want to associate myself with the comments that you made about
the $162 million account. I didn't get into that, but I could
ask many questions about that, how it would work mechanically
in terms of new canker finds. Would that be a new emergency? Or
will that be the old emergency? And which account will it be
paid out of?
Also, 162 million to pay for all the invasive pest
emergencies of this country for 1 year may not be enough. When
you look at what has been done historically, what we have had
to pay out of CCC in the last couple of years is about double
that. So I would like to associate myself with the opening
remarks of the chairman about that way of doing business.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. Boyd. And also with the point
you brought up, I think I would like to emphasize the need for
us to continue to have that emergency authority to deal with
some of these things when they break out. That is what we are
talking about here today.
I have a couple of questions remaining, as well, but I
would like to go ahead and yield to my friend, Mr. LaHood.
MAD COW DISEASE
Mr. LaHood. Let me just ask one other question, Mr.
Chairman.
One year ago, your agency, particularly the Secretary, the
number one topic was mad cow disease. Is that still a problem
in the world, and is it a problem for our country? We haven't
heard much about it. I haven't read much about it, and I am not
certain if that is because we have eradicated it, the world
community has, or if other things have grabbed the headlines.
Mr. Hawks. Actually, the Department had entered into a
contract with Harvard to do a risk assessment on BSE, or mad
cow disease, and we issued that report about a month to 6 weeks
ago. The finding by the scientific community in a very, very
detailed research project was that the risk of mad cow disease
in this country was very minimal, and that even in the event
that it was here and had been here, it would be stopped.
And there has recently been a GAO report that I am sure you
are familiar with, that actually didn't look at it in depth
like the scientific study did and had, maybe, some other
conclusions that one could draw.
But it is our belief in the Department of Agriculture that
the risk assessment that Harvard did--and they are well known
for their ability to assess risk--says that there is a very
minimal risk for mad cow disease in this country.
Mr. LaHood. What is happening in other countries?
Mr. Hawks. There are other countries that did not implement
the same things that we did with feed bans, with various
processes to mitigate for mad cow disease that are actually
showing up. As you are familiar, I am sure, Japan recently had
mad cow disease there. It is showing up in other countries as
well.
But as I said, we feel that this country has a very minimal
risk. We have actually strengthened and increased surveillance.
As you are aware, the only way right now that we have to test
for this is to test the brains of a dead animal.
We are increasing that surveillance. We are increasing the
surveillance on farms. We are actually doubling our
surveillance. I think we have done at least 500 now off of
farms, and that is the highest risk that we have there.
There are a lot of issues involved in this, and when you
start looking at it and start trying to mitigate all of these
issues, you come up with other issues. So we have to be very
careful on how we approach this, but we think the surveillance
that we are doing for the most likely places is a good way to
determine whether we do or don't have it.
But as I said, it is a very minimal risk, at best.
Mr. LaHood. Congratulations. This was obviously a hot topic
a year or so ago, and obviously somebody has been doing a lot
of good work at the Department.
Let me just go back to the issue that I raised before, Ms.
Waterfield. And, Mr. Secretary, I will just make this point.
You can respond to it if you want.
I think there are two issues here with this amendment. One
is the policy; the other is the money. I mean, our committee
has the responsibility for appropriating money, and I guess
what I am wondering is--what do you need to look at is, if this
becomes law, what does it mean in terms of your agency, in
terms of inspection and the relationship that you have with the
packers and with the livestock people?
I mean, this is a significant change in the way this kind
of operation is carried out, the selling of livestock and the
packers and so forth, and that is the issue that I want to
raise--not only the policy part of it but the money part of it.
It looks to me like, in your budget, there hasn't been a
dramatic increase in inspections at places where livestock are
slaughtered, and so I really think you need to look at this
from both points of view. The policy point of view which--as
Mr. Boyd said, in my area it is the same.
There is a conflict, you know. People are trying to figure
out if it really does make good sense in terms of policy, but
in terms of your point of view, I think it is going to add
additional cost. But--you know, you are smarter than I am about
that, but I think you need to look at that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
WILDLIFE SERVICES
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. LaHood.
Mr. Acord, I want to talk about Wildlife Services for a
second. That has always been an issue that is not only
important to the country, but important to my area. I believe
it was Mr. Butler that came in the other day and emphasized the
point that this is not just a problem for rural areas. A lot of
urban areas out there have problems with animals--for example
birds getting in the way of planes at JFK Airport. Did you
bring the picture of the coyote on the subway?
Mr. Hawks. I brought the picture.
Mr. Bonilla. That coyote on the subway, that famous picture
will be used down the road, Mr. Hawks, when I am sure there
will be another effort to try to cut this line item as we move
this bill forward. Some people don't understand that this is
not just a rural problem.
That coyote on the subway is a clear example of the
problem. We will probably get it blown up, and no matter what
subway they might think it is, we are going to tell them it was
on their subway.
Mr. LaHood. Do you think that picture will be on the wall
in this room, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Bonilla. Well, I would like to honestly explore the
possibility. If you can get that picture blown up, I would like
to have that picture on this wall. Let us do that if it is
possible.
Mr. Hawks. Mr. Chairman, I encourage you to do that, and we
will take charge of getting it blown up for you.
Mr. Bonilla. I have a question on Wildlife Services and
cooperators in different States paying their fair share of
program costs. In our State of Texas, for example, we are
funding nearly 50 percent more than the Federal Government's
share of Wildlife Services, and we are glad to do that. We know
it is important.
Understanding that the budget request is going to try to
count on more of this in the future, my question is, how much
of a reduction is there in the Wildlife Services request that
reflects the move for cooperators to pick up a larger share of
the program? Are the funds available in the budget request to
match the Federal Government's share up to the level of the
cooperator's share, Mr. Acord?
Mr. Acord. No, sir. They are not in terms of the last part
of your question.
The budget request does, as you have suggested, contemplate
the cooperators providing additional funds. There is about $9
million--in terms of the reduction, that the cooperators would
be expected to pick up.
The cooperative share that is paid by the States around the
country is very, very uneven. Texas happens to be one of those
great States that, has a very, very high cooperative share on
the State side. There are others that don't have quite that
high level, but we simply don't have the funds to equalize the
cooperative cost share all across the country.
Mr. Bonilla. Well, that is something that we are going to
have to work on--not just in my area, but we are going to have
to work on that nationwide to make sure that these folks do
have the resources they need to handle this problem.
Mr. Acord. Well, it is a program that while it does have
some controversy associated with it, I don't think there is a
group of men and women that work any harder in the government
anywhere or that are more ingenious or more creative when it
comes to finding solutions to difficult problems. And we have
always appreciated your support for the Wildlife Services
program.
Mr. Bonilla. I am honestly baffled year in and year out
when some people do try to add controversy to this issue,
because these are some of the most thoughtful, humane people
behind these programs. They are carrying out the program for
the right reasons and not for some of the reasons that people
are just dreaming up in their heads to try to create
controversy.
Mr. Boyd.
INVASIVE SPECIES
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to say to you all
that I believe there is an increase in requests for salaries
and expenses on the APHIS side which recognizes the whole
problem we have with invasive pests. I know we got some money
in the antiterrorism supplemental, and so I just want to tell
you all that this member, and I am sure other members of the
subcommittee also, want to be supportive and helpful.
We know that we starve you and expect you to get the job
done at places like Miami and the other places around the
country where we have this problem. I just wanted to compliment
you for doing the best you could on the budget side and want to
offer our support; and I really don't have a question.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you. Mr. Boyd, did you have anything
further? Mr. LaHood?
Mr. LaHood. No, I don't.
Mr. Bonilla. My understanding is Ms. Kaptur is going to
return with additional questions. She will be returning
shortly, as well as Mrs. Emerson from Missouri who is trying to
juggle a couple of things on the floor. We do expect a vote
within about 6 or 7 minutes. If you all would be patient with
us, we would appreciate that. Mr. Boyd?
Mr. Boyd. Mr. Chairman, do you want to fill time?
Mr. Bonilla. If you have questions, we would be delighted
to hear them.
AERIAL OPERATIONS
Mr. Boyd. Something has come to my attention that--we have
got these experts here, we can always find out good additional
information.
But APHIS is involved in the safety of aerial operations,
with the birds around the airports; does that make sense? Can
you talk to me a little bit about that and what kind of problem
that is. And I understand that several States ranked pretty
high in bird strikes. And how many people do we have, and what
kind of people do we need or resources do we need? How do we
fight this problem?
Mr. Acord. There have always been problems with birds and
airplanes in the same airspace. This is a growing problem,
around the country. We started out probably with one of our
first big programs at Kennedy Airport with gulls getting into
the airspace in one particular runway. We have continued to
work with the Air Line Pilots Association, with States, with
State wildlife agencies, to find solutions to these problems,
because oftentimes airports seem to be located near water. They
seem to be located near landfills, or landfills are located
near the airports because of the way the land use patterns are,
and it creates an inherent problem.
One of the things we have tried to do is work with the
airline industry to develop methods of control in and around
airports, to do research on how the environment impacts the
birds--what kind of birds does it attract, the height of the
grass in and around the airport and other environmental factors
that might influence the birds' presence in and around
airports.
Miami happens to be an airport that has a particular
problem.
We are continuing to try to work with the airport authority
in most of the situations where they request it in order to
enter into a monitoring program and an assistance program where
the birds can be scared or there can be other environmental
modifications around an airport that would prevent the birds
from wanting to congregate there.
Most of this work is funded by the airport authority; it is
done cooperatively with them. The issue becomes the research
and who funds the research, and we have received money from
FAA.
We work cooperatively with FAA as well. We maintain the
database for FAA on bird strikes.
But it is not just birds. It is other wildlife. In some
cases, deer get into jet engines, and it doesn't take much
imagination to figure out what happens there. So we work on all
wildlife, not just birds.
Mr. Boyd. It sounds like cubed venison to me.
Okay. Is there anything we need to do? I mean, the only
thing I can offer is that we have a lot of hunters at home. If
you provide the planes----
Mr. Acord. In today's environment, anyone around an airport
with a gun is going to have great difficulty. So that is why
they are looking for someone with a security clearance to get
on an airport to perform this work.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Acord.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. Boyd.
FEDERAL SEED PROGRAM
Mr. Hawks, the AMS Federal Seed Act program regulates
agricultural and vegetable seed moving in interstate commerce.
It prohibits false labeling in advertising of seed to ensure
farmers and consumers can purchase the correct variety of seed.
Seed shipments are sampled by State departments of agriculture
and apparent violations of the act are sent to AMS for
regulatory action. The Seed Act budget is $1.3 million in 2002.
My question is directed to Mr. Yates. You are requesting
$1.1 million in increases for your Federal Seed Act program. If
approved, this increase would almost double the size of the
program.
Tell us why you are requesting such a significant change
and what the benefits of that increase will be to agriculture
in this country.
Mr. Yates. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is critically
important.
Our seed program for the last 20 years has not had any
additional appropriations. In fact, the appropriations have
decreased over the last 20 years. And so we have not filled
positions of people that have retired, and the equipment that
we are operating with today is 20 years old--not only our seed
testing equipment, but also our computer equipment that we use
to track all of the violations and all of the certifications of
seed. This is really important for agriculture, because we
market 30 percent of the seed that we produce in the United
States in the international marketplace.
Another piece of this is that we have to have our seed lab
accredited. Accreditation is critically important to where we
are recognized in the international marketplace and where we
have the ability to move our seed, as well as being able to
work with our State partners and make sure that they are
considered accredited also. That is the main reason that we
have asked for this increase.
Mr. Bonilla. Folks, the bells have just gone off for a
vote. We will take a 5-minute break and resume the hearing when
we are able to return. Mrs. Emerson will likely be the first
one to resume questioning.
We will take a very brief break, and we will be back with
you.
Mr. Boyd, did you have--I am sorry. Did you have----
Mr. Boyd. Can I?
Mr. Bonilla. Absolutely.
BOLL WEEVIL
Mr. Boyd. Thank you. One of the programs that the chairman
and this member both are interested in is the boll weevil
eradication program, and I notice a significant decrease in the
budget request.
Do we have good news there, that the reduction is because
we don't have anymore boll weevils to eradicate, or the bad
news is that we just are refusing to do it?
Mr. Hawks. Mr. Boyd, obviously being from Mississippi, the
Boll Weevil Eradication Program is very important to me as
well. The program has been very successful. We are moving into
different phases of the program now. Actually, the cooperators
are picking up more of the expense of that program, but as we
move forward into the later phases of the program, there are
actually less demands on that program.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you very much. It has been a very
successful program. Thank you.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you for bringing that up, Mr. Boyd. You
are right, that is a very, very big deal for my State as well.
At this time, we will take a few minutes break and we will
return.
[Recess.]
DEBARKING
Mrs. Emerson [presiding]. I will reconvene the hearing.
Thanks for being here. Sorry I missed the beginning of your
testimony. I have an interesting question, and one that I am
most concerned about. It has to do with hardwood debarking. It
is my understanding that APHIS is going to be supporting the
position of the wood products industry that would have the
debarking requirement deleted from proposed International Plant
Protection Commission wood packing regulations. Given the fact
that I have 1.1 million acres of Mark Twain National Forest,
and this is critical to my district and the thousands of
individuals who are employed in the wood packing and related
industries, plus my little bitty sawmill owners, I would like
to hear about your support for this. Hopefully you support
this.
Mr. Hawks. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Emerson, we did meet last week
with your constituents, I think last week or week before last,
to have a discussion about that, and the fact is there are some
proposals before the IPPC now. Actually Rich Dunkle, who is
sitting right behind me, is our representative to that
committee, and certainly he is working with his counterparts in
both Mexico and Canada to try to have a unified voice toward
that, and I can share with you people think that this guy must
have done everything in the world.
But I am a former owner of one of those little sawmills as
well, and not only an owner of the sawmill, I worked at that
sawmill. So I certainly understand and appreciate your concerns
there.
Mrs. Emerson. I hope it all works out, because the people
who are really impacted in my district are those whose yearly
incomes may be 7, 8, 9, $10,000 maximum. To see their success
pulled out from under them would be devastating. So I
appreciate that.
CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE
Let me ask you another question that we are concerned about
within the Missouri Department of Agriculture. It has to do
with the potential for an outbreak of chronic wasting disease
in captive elk herds, and I am told CWD is readily
transmittable to deer. I would like to know what you all are
doing to try to stop the spread of chronic wasting disease.
Mr. Hawks. I will answer that, and then I will turn to the
real expert as well. We are in the process right now. We got
emergency funding for the depopulation of those elk herds that
have been diagnosed with chronic wasting disease that has been
going on for probably about a month now. I personally got
involved, as well as the Deputy Secretary in that process,
because it concerns me as well.
And I think as you said that there is a possibility of it
transmitting to white-tailed deer. So that is obviously
something that I am very interested in and very concerned
about, and I will ask Mr. Acord to give you more detail.
Mrs. Emerson. Thank you Mr. Hawks.
Mr. Acord. Ms. Emerson, as Mr. Hawks indicated, we have an
emergency program underway to depopulate those farm-raised elk
that have been found to have chronic wasting disease in those
herds, and we have also taken out the remainder of the herd
because of their having been exposed. The major focus of that
program has been in Colorado, but as we begin to trace out
other animals that have interacted with those herds, we expect
to find others in other parts of the country.
We are working cooperatively with the State Departments of
Wildlife to assist with the laboratory diagnosis of the samples
that have been submitted from hunter harvest sampling. You
probably are aware that just this week, there were three deer
confirmed in Wisconsin as having chronic wasting disease.
It is a concern to us. We certainly want to make sure that
we continue to focus on the farm-raised elk and deer, and that
we continue to assist the States with the survey of the disease
in the wild populations so that we have knowledge of the
distribution of the disease in the country. The work so far is
concentrating on those farm-raised animals that are in
Colorado, a herd in Oklahoma, and another in Nebraska.
Mrs. Emerson. Do you feel you have the necessary resources
to do the job?
Mr. Acord. The difficulty right now is we do not know how
big the job is. The more surveillance that we do, the more we
are apt to find; we have the resources for the job that we now
know about. We have the request in for an increase to deal with
next year, but the more we learn, the more we may find.
Mrs. Emerson. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Acord. My
time is up, and I will yield to my colleague from Ohio.
Ms. Kaptur. I thank the Chairlady very much, and I wanted
to just float an idea, Under Secretary Hawks, and see if you
consider this within your purview at MRP. Though the food and
nutrition service is not under your jurisdiction this year, we
are being asked to appropriate over $10\1/2\ billion for
purchases of commodities that go into our school breakfast and
lunch programs.
Under the AMFS, I think you have a request for about $700
million for supplemental commodities that are brought for
various reasons for market stability and that are incorporated
into the school breakfast and lunch programs. But as you think
about the concept of marketing, let me give you a specific
situation from my own State, where I think the Department of
Agriculture needs to help the States meet the farmers who could
provide the food into the school breakfast and lunch programs.
What has been happening is, in many places where we have
farmers producing product, whether it is apples or beef or
chickens, which could be made into Chicken McNuggets, the
problem often is that the farmers are not organized in a manner
to bid on the State contracts.
So in the State of Ohio, for example, the contract for the
food programs comes through Department of Education, which
really doesn't talk to the State Department of Agriculture and
there is a misfire. I think that that probably happens in many
places in the country. I had a group of farmers in my office
yesterday. They were up here with the land grant institutions,
and many of them were talking about what happens inside those
cafeterias and how the kids do not eat the proper food. They
are drinking pop, they are not drinking orange juice.
I had mothers in my office yesterday talking about how
children are refusing orange juice in droves in Ohio because
they do not know what it is. This is in the rural communities.
This is not to say, that it is not going on in urban areas.
This is out in the rural areas. What is happening to our
children's diet? We know one of the big problems we face is
obesity among our children, improper exercise and improper
diet, and though you probably do not see this as your role, I
would encourage you to look at that 10.5 billion dollars and
see, perhaps, in a demonstration basis, with the nutrition
service, how we can have farmers working with our local school
systems providing that food.
Farmers are the best stewards we have. They understand the
nutritional content of food and there is a huge divorce going
on between the ways these State Departments of Education,
whoever is buying the food and what happens with our local
agricultural communities.
So it is not a problem you can solve overnight, but really
you need to have some discussions at the highest levels and you
will find what USDA has been doing in this regard is very
small.
Mr. Hawks. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur. You are exactly right,
and we do have projects going on now that address that. I had a
group in my office within the last few months and we were
talking about this very situation, and I am going to turn to
Mr. Yates to talk to you in depth, I think, about that, because
he is much more familiar with it because it is operated out of
his mission area, but I agree with you that we need to have
that connection.
LOCAL FOOD PURCHASES
Mr. Yates. Thank you. It is an important piece which we
have been working on, and you may be correct that we could do
more and do a better job because it is critically important to
small farmers that they have the ability and the opportunity to
market their product where everybody else markets it. We have
had a number of programs going on that are working with local
communities and with school districts and educating them that
there is product at home. You can buy it here.
And so we will take your suggestions seriously and look
into what we can do to improve the fate of the small farmer,
being able to move their product into the purchases that are
made and into this pot of money that is there to buy
agricultural products.
Ms. Kaptur. In some cases, processing is needed.
Mr. Yates. That is correct.
Ms. Kaptur. In other cases, for instance, in Ohio,
Congressman Hall came to me a few years ago. There was a
problem because the school systems in Ohio, the Department of
Education in Ohio, wouldn't buy apples from Ohio apple
producers because somebody had written some contract that the
kids would only eat applesauce and not fresh apples or some
ridiculous thing, and we had to get into that. I thought this
is unbelievable.
The whole system fights against working with our local
farmers and welcoming them into the supply chain and making it
easy. I do not understand what is going on there, but it is
pretty serious when you have got $10\1/2\ billion out there.
That is a significant segment of the market and we need to
connect our farmers to that.
I just might mention, and I know this round is up, but that
in two other programs, the women, infants and children farmer
markets program and senior farmer market nutrition programs,
there are no funds provided in the administration's budget. I
mentioned this to the Secretary, and I do not appreciate that
because I am a big advocate of those programs. But I can tell
you they are not only good for the recipients and the buyers,
but they are superb for farmers because it is direct cash
income into their operations. There is a fault line in
agriculture between the really big producers and between the
smaller and medium-sized producers. For the smaller and medium
producers, this is the difference between making it into the
next fiscal year and not.
I just, again, would draw your attention to those programs
because they really do directly provide income to farmers who
cannot find their way to the shelf at the way the grocery
industry is structured today.
So, again, those are programs that I am just rising to
raise consciousness here with every single top level person who
comes before us. They really do help farmers survive. Their
operation survive in communities like mine, and we have lost so
many. We have the last generation of farmers out there. I am
talking to the kids and I am concerned about what our
communities are going to look like 40 years from now, and so I
want to use every tool at the Department of Agriculture to help
these folks survive and thrive.
Mr. Yates. I appreciate that. I oversaw the farmers market
WIC program in California, so I understand what it can do, not
only for farmers, but also for the people who need help. It is
a very successful program, and we will certainly take your
comments to heart and look at this to see if we can find a way
that we can improve small agriculture out there.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
ANIMAL WELFARE ACT
Mrs. Emerson. Mr. Hawks, you are new to this job but some
of the proposals in your budget request are not. Your testimony
indicates that legislation will be submitted to recover about
$34 million more in user fees to recover the cost of new
license fees in the packers and stockyards administration,
additional license fees for facilities regulated under the
Animal Welfare Act, and additional grain inspection fees for
grain standards.
Obviously, we here in Congress would need time to review
the proposal, hold hearings, pass legislation in both bodies,
and then conference before a bill could be signed into law. Has
this legislation been drafted yet, or if not, when do you plan
on submitting it to Congress?
Mr. Hawks. I actually do not know whether the legislation
has been drafted. JoAnn, can you address that, or Stephen?
LICENSING FEES
Ms. Waterfield. The legislation for packers and stockyards
licensing fees has been drafted. It is in the clearance process
in the Department.
Mrs. Emerson. That portion of it has been drafted and then
it will be submitted to the agriculture committee?
Ms. Waterfield. Yes.
Mrs. Emerson. Okay. Do you have any sense on the timing for
the other pieces?
Mr. Dewhurst. The other is the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service. I think the status is the same. I think the
legislation has been drafted. It is working its way through the
process.
Mrs. Emerson. As well as additional grain and inspection
fees for grain standards?
Ms. Waterfield. My understanding is the legislation for the
grain standards has already been submitted.
Mrs. Emerson. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.
It is important for us to look over that if we want to get it
done in a fairly rapid way. You know how the process up here
works. It can take a bit of time.
Let me direct the next question to you, Ms. Waterfield.
Your budget request includes a total of about $3.4 million for
various information technology and biotechnology initiatives
that would enhance GIPSA's capabilities to conduct its work.
This represents almost half of your total increase. Can you
tell the committee how these technological enhancements would
improve your work product and how American agriculture would
also benefit?
E-COMMERCE
Ms. Waterfield. The majority of the increases that you just
mentioned are for e-commerce. It is to increase our ability to
communicate with the constituents that we serve. Right now, the
majority of the work that we do is done with a traditional
paper trail. What we want to do is increase our ability to move
the information that we have electronically on both sides of
our house, both with the grain work that we do and with the
work that we do in the livestock and packing industries. Most
of the people that we serve and regulate have capabilities to
communicate with us electronically. Unfortunately, we do not
have the capabilities to communicate with them electronically.
What we do have right now is a simple Web site. What we need to
have is the ability to give and receive information
electronically.
On the grain side, we are just starting to have the ability
to transmit documents from multiple sites. So like documents
that will facilitate the shipment of grain from multiple sites
all the way to the ship, we want to increase our ability to do
that.
On the packers and stockyard side, we have annual reports
that we collect. We have postings that we do with stockyards.
We have all kinds of information that we move back and forth.
We have investigators stationed throughout the country that are
constantly out in packing houses, and auction markets. We need
to be able to move information to them immediately, so they
have instant access, and the only way that we can do that is to
upgrade our computer systems, and this is going to take a
substantial amount of funding.
On the biotech side we need $450,000 in order to update and
keep our new facility in Kansas City up to date so that we can
provide testing on lab kits and proficiency testing for
laboratories that the industry uses to provide services to
itself.
Mrs. Emerson. How long you think it will take, at least on
the packers and stockyards part, to get your upgrades or
enhancements completed?
Ms. Waterfield. The time line right now is to complete most
of those by the end of fiscal year 2003, I think, but it is an
ongoing process, so we do the best that we can with the current
funding that we have.
Mrs. Emerson. Is the system really pretty obsolete at this
point in time?
Ms. Waterfield. We have some national databases. We have
three regional offices. Some of those databases are local. What
happens with some of them is that they have to send it
overnight. So we have a national database in DC, with local
databases in the regional offices, so it is very cumbersome.
What is most difficult is that we have resident agents in 38
different locations, and it takes them a long time to get
information from the computers.
They have to call back to our offices, which means that we
have to keep our offices staffed with people able to give them
information, which means that we cannot send those people out
to do investigations. And as you know, we have less than 200
people to police a huge industry, so we do the best we can with
limited resources.
Mrs. Emerson. But you feel pretty confident that the plan
you all have put together will solve the challenges that you
presently have?
Ms. Waterfield. Yes. One of the things that GIPSA did this
year was to consolidate our information technology staff on the
grain side and the packer side to make the best use of the
resources we have. We are constantly looking for ways to
increase our efficiency.
Mrs. Emerson. I wish you the best of luck. I yield back to
Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. I would like to continue
on the AMS front here. I understand that the Department of
Agriculture currently holds about 900 million pounds of nonfat
dry milk as a part of its price support operations, which is
about a 2-year supply or 2 years' production of milk, and I
know it costs something to maintain that. I wonder if someone
in the audience might be able to give us that number; but my
real question is, does the Department, if you are anticipating
further acquisition of such product, have the ability to
contract with processors to get the milk in another form such
as nonfat cheese, for example, or low fat cheese, that we could
use in our food assistance programs?
Mr. Hawks. I personally do not feel that comfortable
answering this question because that is clearly one that is
handled by the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services. They
handle the price support end of it. We are not involved with
that, but I think Mr. Dewhurst would probably be the
appropriate person to address that.
Mr. Dewhurst. Well, you are right. We have a huge supply of
nonfat dry milk in storage in Kansas City. I did not bring that
number, but I can certainly provide it for the record, but we
have large amounts of nonfat dry milk and sugar.
[The information follows:]
CCC COMMODITY INVENTORY NONFAT DRY MILK AND SUGAR--March 1, 2002
(Millions of pounds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonfat dry milk................................................ 914.7
Refined sugar.................................................. 181.1
Raw cane sugar................................................. 588.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Kaptur. You are saying that from a departmental
standpoint, the people doing this are not thinking about what
you all think about in terms of marketing, and so we have got
to look at this one right, and one thing I do know the kids eat
in the school is cheese on pizza, they will eat that, and it
just seems to me it would be very interesting to see what that
storage number is.
FOOD PURCHASES AND THE SMALL FARMER
Similarly let me ask, I believe you purchase 683 million
pounds of fruits and vegetables for the food assistance
programs at a cost of about $340 million. My questions really
are, if anyone could enlighten us on where you buy, whether it
is from commodity brokers, wholesalers and how the individual
farmers fit into this purchase process.
Mr. Yates. Once we decide by analysis that there is some
agricultural entity with an oversupply, an economic problem, we
then go out to publish that need for bids, and so everyone who
is in that commodity has the opportunity to bid on that,
providing it meets the specifications. So those bids come
forward and we select the lowest bid for the commodity. I don't
know if that totally answers your question.
Ms. Kaptur. Well, I am very curious, administrator Yates,
in terms of how do individual farmers learn about these, and do
they bid and what does the history show. Maybe you could
provide this to the record. Are we basically getting commodity
brokers or are we getting wholesalers? Are we getting
individual farmers to bid into this? I don't know at what
quantity you ask a supplier to provide you product, but again,
this is an income stream that is out there for our farmers. My
question is how much of it is actually getting to them directly
as opposed to indirectly?
Mr. Yates. When we put out a bid, there will be multiple
cities that this product is going to be supplied to, and so
each location has to be individually bid. Most of these bids, I
will grant you, come from maybe a packing house where you will
have multiple growers that supply this packing house. So it
does get down to smaller growers through this larger packing
house, but if you are taking most of the meat purchases, these
are rather large purchases, and so it basically has to be a
rather large company. We do deal with minority purchasers and
try to help them through this process and be able to be a part
of it.
The small farmer issue--I think that most of that is done
through cooperatives and bids that would come from a packer or
a middleman that deals with their product.
Ms. Kaptur. Is there a minimum volume limit that is
established in the contract?
Mr. Yates. I would be glad to check on that. I don't know
that answer right offhand.
[The information follows:]
The minimum volume purchased is a truckload quantity--
generally 36,000-48,000 pounds. AMS normally does not buy
directly from farmers because most commodities are at least
minimally processed to meet recipient requests. For example,
the program buys large quantities of ground beef and canned
vegetables. While the majority of purchases are from businesses
that pack and process commodities, many of these firms procure
raw materials from independent small farmers. For example,
while we purchase poultry products from some of the largest
poultry processing firms in the country, small farmers provide
the chickens to the processor. In addition, during fiscal year
2001, approximately 50 percent of AMS purchases were from small
businesses.
Ms. Kaptur. Let me use one example. I am just trying to
illustrate a point here because of the situation facing so many
of our producers both on the livestock side and specialty crops
and so forth, but just on livestock, in my part of the country,
now we do not have the big feed lots like they do in the West,
but the life of an individual beef producer cattleman in
northwest Ohio is totally controlled by IBP over in Indiana,
for the most part, and they can choose to welcome them that day
or not because we do not have processing capability, and if
they drive their animals across the State line and they try to
get them slaughtered and they say sorry, we just closed the
door, they have to drive them back, and they cannot get their
product on the shelf of the local supermarket because the
supermarkets tend to follow the same pattern of buying from the
big processor.
We are having a really giant struggle to try to find a way
to bring really quality beef to the market because the
processing capabilities are there no longer and this is
happening across our country. We are not the only place that
this happens, and so we have very good product raised by our
individual companies, and so my question to you, I am looking
for other ways to move to product into the market to help these
people survive.
They have got to meet the quality, they have got to meet
the price and all the rest which they can do, but I have just
seen the system move to a point where we have these large
processing facilities that control so much, and they basically
shut out individual producers.
If there are co-ops, I know they exist in some parts of the
country, that is one way up the chain, but Ohio, we haven't
followed the co-op route as much. We are much more into small
enterprise individual enterprise, and I am looking for ways to
help those folks bid on product.
So that is kind of where I am coming from. So whether it is
fruit and vegetables, whether it is meat, whether it is milk,
whatever, we will ask several questions for the record so we
can see what is happening. It doesn't hurt us to look at what
is happening out there in the system and then ask some
questions about small and medium size enterprise and minority
enterprise.
Women are moving into many of these specialty crop areas.
How do we get them information so at least they can think about
how to bid?
Mr. Yates. One of the interesting things I am very familiar
with, and I was in the cattle business for 20 years myself, so
I understand the issue you raise, but in the local area where I
live in California, it is the center of the raisin industry for
the United States, and the average raisin grower in the Nation
is 30 acres. All of them happen to be right there within a 50-
mile radius of Fresno. So the average size is 30 acres, and we
have bought numerous product in the last number of years,
including some this year, through a packer that concentrates
this product to prepare it for shipment. The small grower in
that instance is benefiting greatly from the ability to move
product through the school lunch program and the EFE program.
Ms. Kaptur. Well, I have to say that I am considering some
type of small farmer producer set aside. I want to see what the
numbers show us, though, and we will submit more questions to
the record on it. Thank you for thinking with us on this.
Mr. Yates. I appreciate that.
[The information follows:]
During fiscal year 2001, AMS spent more than $1 billion on
commodities. Of that amount, approximately 50 percent was awarded to
small businesses, with firms participating in the Small Business
Administration's 8(a) Program receiving 6 percent and Women-owned and
Historically Under-utilized Business Zone businesses receiving almost 1
percent each.
Ms. Kaptur. My time is up.
Mr. Bonilla [presiding]. Ms. Kaptur, if you have additional
questions, you may proceed. My understanding is that there no
other members have any remaining questions.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
I am trying not to make it too long here.
We have several questions for the record, but let me ask
you, Under Secretary Hawks, what role do you see yourself
having in the marketing of biofuels? Here we are engaged in
Enduring Freedom, this long and protracted effort, and our
politics, in my opinion, totally tied to, unfortunately, the
acquisition of oil from very undemocratic places in the world,
a half of our trade deficit now centered in the import of oil
from such democratic places, put that in quotes, as Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, even Iraq,
which is such a dilemma, isn't it?
I am just such, I am almost a zealot in the area of soy
diesel and ethanol and any kind of cellulosic biofuel that we
could produce. What do you see your role in helping this
industry grow and prosper in our country in providing new
income streams to our farmers?
Mr. Hawks. In the position that I hold here, Under
Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, and it is
somewhat limited, but the tremendous asset that we have here
and an opportunity that I see for us is within our market
promotion and research programs that we oversee within AMS. We
can work with those commodity organizations there to try to
facilitate the development and expansion of areas like ethanol,
like biodiesel, where a lot of research has been done within
those market promotion programs. But then it would become a
wider discussion, I think, within USDA, and it would probably
be more appropriate to address with rural development.
I can see rural development having tremendous opportunities
there as well, and if it is a broad overarching question, then
it goes to a governmentwide question, I would say, with the
Department of Energy in conjunction with USDA. There are a lot
of discussions going on, a lot of things going on, and where
Mr. Dewhurst has the overall perspective from the Department of
Agriculture, he very well may want to address some of these.
Mr. Dewhurst. I think in the previous hearing we talked
about providing you all with some crosscuts of the issue areas,
and biofuels is one of them. We have some numbers and
description that we will lay out for you showing what our
various agencies do in that area.
With regards to biofuels in the Department, there is work
done at ARS and the CSREES in the form of research. There is a
program in the CCC that subsidizes ethanol production. There is
some work in the Forest Service and a number of other agencies,
all overseen by a structure in the Department that looks at the
question of energy policy and biofuels. So we will provide you
with that information and be glad to.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. I really think you have the keys to the
kingdom. We have the keys to the kingdom. Now we just have to
enlighten others.
The Department of Energy historically, this is nothing
against them, but I mean, they grew out of the nuclear industry
so you have a very heavy prejudice there and weight of opinion
of the side of nuclear. Those that like nuclear, so be it, but
I am sort of in the renewables arena and what we can do.
There is just a great article I talked about last night on
floor of Congress written by Senator Lugar and the former CIA
director, James Woolsey that was published in foreign affairs
in late 1999 called The New Petroleum, and it talked about
cellulosic biofuels, and I would just refer it to you just as
truly pleasure reading and a view of the future. I would love
to find a way to put a soy diesel pump or biofuel pump over at
the USDA the same way we did farmers market and let people
think a little bit about this, enlighten the American people.
This should be part of that exhibit at the Smithsonian.
This is the future for us and you have the collection
capabilities, you have the research capabilities, you have the
marketing capabilities, and within USDA, we need to ratchet it
up a bit, and I think every single person there has a
responsibility in helping to crystallize this for the American
people, and frankly for us, so we can be more helpful in
building a new future.
Christine Todd Whitman just said this morning on C-SPAN
that she drives an EP vehicle, ethanol powered vehicle. Just to
tell you how seriously deficient we are in unlocking the keys
to the kingdom, we had the head of the Forest Service up here
the other day in our CS, and I said you have one of the largest
fleets in the country. What percent of your vehicles are
powered by biofuels? They are unconscious. They are not
thinking about it. It isn't part of their mission, and so even
within the Department we have a job to do. Enough said on that
one.
IMPORTS
I wanted to go to APHIS if I might and just observe that in
the budget submission you have made to us there is increase in
appropriated dollars to deal with many of the pests and
problems we are having due largely to imports, and I have said
this at other meetings, but I am going to say it again, and
that is a huge international legal question, who is really
responsible for paying the costs of infestation that affects
our food system?
If one takes the Asian long-horned beetle, for example,
knowing its origin, why should I be asked to use taxpayer
dollars sent here by people from my community and Congressman
Bonilla's community when they did not cause the problem? They
are the victim. The cities of Chicago and New York are the
victims of infestation that has come from offshore.
We have talked to the Secretary about the international
trade agreements that we sign and some of the international
forums in which she would appear. I really do not think the
answer to this is more appropriations. That is a short-term
emergency answer perhaps but long term, the cost of this is
phenomenal, just on citrus canker and Asian long-horn beetle,
the remediation.
I know you have presented a traditional request to us, but
as you think about this problem, it is massive, and it is
taking other resources we need for other purposes, and I really
think that the Department ought to consult with groups like the
World Logging Institute to deal with torts and liability at a
much higher level, because we are not going to be able to
afford this, at least what we are going to have to take money
from to pay for it, and I just wonder, Mr. Acord, as you think
about the rising costs of the APHIS budget, if we look at the
last 5 years, for example, what are some of your thoughts in
this regard? Are you just going to continue coming to us to
take taxpayer dollars directly appropriated to try to
remediate? Is this how we are going to solve this problem, in
your opinion?
Mr. Acord. Well, philosophically, I would agree with you
that we ought to try to find someone to send the bill to, if
you will. The reality is where are we going to find that person
or that country, the practicality, just the pragmatic issues of
trying to do that and then trying to collect. Our legal counsel
tells us that they do not believe that currently it is legal to
do that or that we could find a way to do it, in spite of
whether we would like to do it or not.
The other side of that coin is that we may be getting bills
from others. While we believe that we are clean in our exports
and we are not exporting disease, you certainly have to face
the possibility that that could happen because we do have some
diseases here that we could get the bill for through some
accidental introduction to some other country in the world.
The reality is that we have to find new and creative ways
to deal with these pests. We have to find them sooner. We have
to react to them sooner before they become the kind of problem
that citrus canker has been, or that some of the others have
been. Frankly, we found the Asian long-horn beetle soon enough
to where it did not become perhaps the national problem that it
could have been.
The focus needs to be on the early detection and rapid
response to these kinds of pest problems that we keep the costs
down, keep the spread down, and minimize the impact that they
potentially can have in the U.S.
Ms. Kaptur. I thank you for your comments, and I would just
observe that yesterday or early this week, the President made a
decision on the steel industry, and whether one agrees with the
decision or not, there is a method of assessing damage and
responsibility, and it is very important in the behavior of
countries and companies to have a regular order in the global
marketplace and rules that are understood, and I think that we
are in the environmental arena, and I would classify this in
the environmental arena. We need the same regimen, and if the
United States does something to harm another country, you know
what, I think we should be responsible, and I think that exacts
a discipline on our own people.
And so in this important area, I would appreciate, Mr.
Acord, if you would think about this conversation a little bit,
and if there are additional resources we could provide you to
produce the kind of analysis that would lead us to a different
future on this environmental front rather than just keep
absorbing these costs through discretionary spending, I think
we really need that. That report could include the rising costs
that we have been asked to pay over the last several years, but
it seems to me that we have to go beyond what your general
counsel says is what the law allows.
This is the problem. The law needs to be broadened because
of the increased volumes of trade that the world is now
experiencing. We have to find remedies to assess responsibility
where harm has been done and we are the largest importing
Nation in the world. I mean, we take more in here I think than
any other country, and so we are more likely to be harmed, and
I just would urge you not to be bound by the status quo, but to
help us deal with the rising costs that you are bringing to us
in a more future-oriented manner. At least give us some
options, and if you need help in hiring the people to help
think that through, please let us know.
Mr. Acord. Thank you. We will take your advice seriously,
and I believe the economic research service has been requested
to do a study, or they have a request in this year's budget to
do a study on the cost of invasive species and where we should
be spending our resources, and we certainly look forward to
that report.
SCREW WORM
Ms. Kaptur. Okay. I wanted to just turn for a second the
Chiapas facility. About 2 years ago, there was to have been a
meeting to talk about the reuse of that facility in a very key
area of southwest Mexico, and where there has been a lot of, I
am sure you are aware indigenous unrest, and our government had
been operating that facility for a very good biological purpose
to eliminate, I think it was either screw worm or med fly.
Mr. Acord. Screw worm.
Ms. Kaptur. That is what I thought, and we had asked a
prior administration to make a proposal to us that if we were
going to diminish that facility and discontinue the activities
that were ongoing, what recommendations we might have to turn
it into a research station or a place where tropical fruits,
for example, could be either researched or propagated working
with the local people, but we never did get an answer back on
that.
Mr. Hawks. I will answer.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. Secretary.
Mr. Hawks. I was not here 2 years ago or even a year ago,
but I can share with you what has transpired since my coming to
USDA. We have completely, with our partners in that project,
the Mexican government, and the Screwworm Commission, have
reevaluated that situation. It is our intent now for that
facility to stay open, and I have actually signed a decision
memo to that effect. So it is actually a state-of-the-art
plant. There have been a lot of upgrades there. There is a
tremendous need for that facility there. There is also a need
for an additional facility farther south, but the answer to the
question is that that facility will be staying open, and I
think the chairman has a certain interest in screwworms as
well, and so we will assure you that that facility will be
maintained.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you for that very clear answer. Will it
be performing its current function?
Mr. Hawks. Yes, ma'am. There is a continued need for that
facility to produce the sterile flies there, and so it will
remain open.
Ms. Kaptur. I know that it was a huge employer in that
area.
Mr. Hawks. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Kaptur. And that was a very sensitive issue, and we had
urged prior Secretaries to talk to AID and other
instrumentalities of our government to do something, maybe
working in cooperation with CSREES. They could raise coffee,
they could raise tropical income. They basically need income.
These are subsistence people. So I thank you for your attention
to that, and if there is anyway we can broaden the purpose of
that in conjunction with some of the other programs we operate,
either through USDA or other instrumentalities of our
government, I would appreciate the recommendations.
I wanted to just shift, if I could very quickly, to the
Packers and Stockyards Administration, and the testimony
submitted indicates there were 124 callers who contacted your
hotline last year to report concerns. Can you give us a little
feel for the nature of those calls and what it is that is being
reported to the Department?
GIPSA HOTLINE CALLS
Ms. Waterfield. Those would just be the hotline calls. We
receive hundreds of calls to our field offices. So that is
actually just a hotline that allows people to call anonymously.
It is important to realize that we receive calls every day
throughout the year in each of our field offices, and we
respond to every call that we receive. Last year we performed
more than 1,600 investigations, and as a result of those
investigations and the work that we performed, we returned more
to the industry than the amount of money that Congress
appropriated to our programs. I would have to get back with you
on the nature of the calls that we received and the breakdown
of the types of complaints that we received.
Ms. Kaptur. Give us a sense of what happens there with the
hotline call. Do people call with a concern about a given
facility?
Ms. Waterfield. Sure. Our complaints on the hotline range
anywhere from a call about the Johnson amendment to a specific
packer, to a poultry grower complaining about his or her
contract, to a complaint about territorial allocation, to
someone calling to say that she did not get paid for a cow that
went through a sale barn. So they range anywhere from a
particular transaction to conditions in the marketplace.
Ms. Kaptur. Well, we will ask some questions to the record
on the nature of the calls and the types of complaints. That
gives us information that we need here as well----
Ms. Waterfield. Okay.
Ms. Kaptur [continuing]. To give a sense of what is
happening in the country. I know that we have been joined by
Mr. Nethercutt, and I have some additional questions on GIPSA,
but I will hold them, Mr. Chairman, if you would like to call
on Mr. Nethercutt.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur. We have a lot of
members of the Agriculture Subcommittee juggling several
hearings this morning. We welcome Mr. Nethercutt who has been
bouncing between hearings and the House floor as well. Welcome,
Mr. Nethercutt.
ANIMAL WELFARE ACT
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are right,
Defense and Interior, and now here. I appreciate your patience.
Mr. Chairman I welcome all the witnesses. You may have
known that I and many others in the Congress are concerned
about the issue of security of our research facilities that are
funded by agriculture research dollars from what I call
domestic terrorist groups, like Earth Liberation Front, and the
Animal Liberation Front. These groups get information off Web
sites about researchers and research through the Freedom of
Information Act, and then use that information to do damage. I
think it is outrageous, and I do have legislation that
addresses this issue and tries to solve that problem.
Secretary Hawks, we did send you a letter on February 8,
2002. You probably haven't had a chance to even look at it yet,
but in that letter, we encouraged APHIS to work with the
research community to evaluate the problem I will call
overexposure. I am informed that some of the material has been
taken off the web, and that is positive. I know there are legal
issues to review regarding security in the Freedom of
Information Act and so forth, but I know also that the older
American Welfare Act or Animal Welfare Act inspections are
still available. I think they ought to be looked at very
carefully as well.
Maybe you have some comments about how we might think
through this whole issue of security from these kinds of
organizations that really are terrorist in nature. The FBI says
ELF & ALF are the number one domestic terrorist group in the
country. I think we should consider whether we might insulate
some of this information from Freedom of Information Act
requests. I know it is a sensitive area, and I support FOIA,
but I do think we need to be careful about this as it relates
to researchers and research dollars. So maybe you have some
thoughts.
Mr. Hawks. Yes, thank you, Mr. Nethercutt. I share your
views and your beliefs. It doesn't matter whether a terrorist
is homegrown or imported, they are still a terrorist, and we
have been evaluating the types of information that is on Web
sites, the information that is readily available. And you are
correct, some of the things have certainly been changed that
are being put up. It is a sensitive nature with the FOIA. There
have been some changes made there in animal care as well on E-
FOIAs, and so we are evaluating that. I share your concerns.
I share your interest there. We will continue also
departmentwide evaluating all of our security issues there. We
have had some external contractors look at some of our
facilities to help us try to discover ways to prevent the
terrorist activities that potentially could be there. So we are
working on this issue.
Mr. Nethercutt. Well, that is great. I hear a lot, from
researchers all across this country, not just ag researchers,
but private researchers. I have a brand new health sciences
facility in my district. The universities there collaborated
and put the money up. They are worried about people coming in
and burning them down. Really, I think forewarned is forearmed.
I think we need to be sure these places are protected.
WOLF ACTIVITIES
Mr. Acord, I know that APHIS conducts livestock protection
activities for resource owners around the country in
cooperation with private and government agencies, and I see
that you mention wolf capture and relocation activities in your
testimony. A couple of years ago, I asked a question regarding
the cost of the wolf program and whether the Department of
Interior, which manages that program, is paying for its fair
share of the control cost. Can you tell us what the
relationship is there, whether your budget is benefited by the
fact that Interior's helping on this?
Mr. Acord. Mr. Nethercutt, thank you for your question. I
think you can see from our appropriation request that we
obviously have a deep interest in wolf control. We are
certainly providing all the control for protecting livestock
and the movement of or the relocation of wolves. Interior does
not fund any of that activity. It all comes out of the wildlife
services appropriation.
Mr. Nethercutt. Given that, it seems to me we have got a
lot of pressure on ag programs. I am on the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee too, so I will ask Secretary Norton
in due course, about this issue. It is their program, as I
understand it, and I have questions about it.
I think my memory is that we had testimony a few years ago,
that the cost of reintroduction of 15 wolves into my part of
the country was $6 million. That seems excessive to me, but in
any event, it is costing you money, and I think money is at a
premium these days for all that you need to do and want to do.
Mr. Acord. Mr. Nethercutt, the cost of reintroduction is
not nearly as expensive as the cost of staying, and that is
what we deal with, the cost of the presence of the wolves when
it comes to their depredation on livestock. That is an expense
often overlooked in the reintroduction program, and it is
something that needs to be considered.
Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
your testimony.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. Nethercutt. I have a comment on
your point about the agri-terrorism issue. That is a very
important issue. These people, in my view, are terrorists
because they have no regard for human life. They will destroy
anything just to make a statement. I want to applaud you for
your work on this issue. I know last year we had a discussion
about possibly putting something in our bill for this cause.
However, last year, members of this subcommittee were extremely
cooperative in getting the bill done. We did not put any
authorizing language of this nature in the bill. I have to tell
you, if I had to pick one issue this year, that would be the
one we would put in this year's bill.
Mr. Nethercutt. Well, it is a new year. We will keep
talking.
Mr. Bonilla. We want another clean bill this year, but
seriously, George, that is a very, very important issue that I
fully support. I hope we can get that done somehow. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, I have got my last round,
and I wanted to go back to GIPSA if I could, the packers and
stockyards, and I have many questions for the record, but I
wanted to ask you if your agency receives complaints regarding
the poultry industry in this country.
POULTRY INDUSTRY COMPLAINTS
Ms. Waterfield. Yes, ma'am. In fact our Atlanta office is
our office that specializes in the poultry industry.
Ms. Kaptur. Oh. Could you tell us a little bit about what
the nature of those complaints might be? Can they be
categorized? Is there a way to describe them? Do they receive
more complaints than maybe other industries?
Ms. Waterfield. Primarily, the nature of the complaints is
that growers in the chicken industry are complaining about
unfair treatment from their integrators under contract terms,
and the vast majority of the time when we go out to
investigate, we find that we can either resolve the complaints
informally, meaning that the integrators will come into
compliance with the contract terms or the complaints are not
valid.
Ms. Kaptur. I tell you, I was very surprised too; I went up
to Delmarva Peninsula a couple of years ago, and walked through
many of those farms and operations and met with some of the
large processing companies then, and one of the impressions I
took away with me from that trip, at that point, how the
farmers had signed contracts that they really did not, they did
not protect their own interests, and they were being asked to
do things, and that started us off on this cause of trying to
get USDA to put up on the Web a sample contracting site, which
then USDA said they could not do, and I said, well, do not put
up a specific contract, put up some samples of what the
questions farmers should ask before they sign.
Ultimately, USDA was helpful there, but I found great lack
of information in the agriculture community on contracting and
I was actually surprised because I had never experienced that
before.
One specific experience, I had one farmer I pointed out a
manure pile because of the pollution in Chesapeake. Oh,
Congresswoman, he thought I was going to cite him or something,
he said we are going to get rid of that, we are going to get
rid of all that, and the company is going to haul it away. I
said haul it away? I said, sir, that is the one thing I know
you own on this operation and you should actually sell that.
That wasn't in the contract. I mean, I just could not believe
some of what I learned.
Then I went to one of the processing firms, and during
lunchtime, one of the executives showed me a bottle where they
had pelletized manure, and what a growth market that was for
them and all, and I just had this experience with this farmer
and then having the experience with the company. I thought
something is missing, and so I appreciate the Department's
support of our measure H.R. 231, to provide you with
administrative authority to investigate, and I know Mrs.
Emerson is a cosponsor with me.
Ms. Waterfield. And Congresswoman, we are dramatically
increasing our outreach to producers and growers, particularly
in the poultry industry. Last fiscal year, we had about 20
poultry town hall meetings specifically geared at growers to
make sure that they understood the protections afforded them by
the Packers and Stockyards Act, and we are trying each year to
reach out further to growers to make sure that they understand
that we are there and that they are one of the intended
beneficiaries of the Act, even as the Act is written now.
So we are trying to increase our efforts to reach them and
to make sure that they understand what the Act does do, and AMS
has led the effort within the Department to provide more
information on contracting and what producers and growers
should look for in contracts.
Ms. Kaptur. Is there a simple way for you to describe to me
what you can do with a complaint about bad practices in the
livestock industry versus the situation you face in the poultry
industry and what your powers are?
Ms. Waterfield. In the poultry industry, our jurisdiction
is limited to live poultry dealers and to any growing
arrangements where poultry is grown for the purpose of
slaughter. And as you know, the poultry industry is pretty much
vertically integrated, which means that most growing of any
kind of poultry is done under contract which would include any
kind of eggs or hens, anything like that.
The problem is that there is a huge misconception about our
jurisdiction. We do not have jurisdiction over any kind of
contracts for egg layers, for example, because those contracts
are not done for the purpose of slaughter. Those contracts are
done for the purpose of laying eggs. So even though the
contracts are in place until the hens are spent and go off to
slaughter, the purpose of those contracts is for the hens to
lay eggs. We do not have jurisdiction over those and our
jurisdiction is very limited, to only those contracts over
growing arrangements for the purpose of slaughter.
Ms. Kaptur. Who does have jurisdiction over?
Ms. Waterfield. No one. That would fall to State law and
contract law.
Ms. Kaptur. You know what is interesting about that, in my
State, we have one company that produces 2.6 billion eggs a
year and they have refused to comply with eight contempt of
court citations by our State Attorney General. I don't know if
you have been involved in cases that have reached the point of
having contempt in the livestock industry. Do you know of any
where eight have been rejected by the company or not responded
to, ignored?
Ms. Waterfield. We have had several. There have been three
or four, and generally in the livestock industry when that
happens, usually because we are working through the Department
of Justice at that point in time, we are able to get the person
incarcerated.
Ms. Kaptur. Okay.
Ms. Waterfield. So one of the contrasting differences is
that in the livestock industry we have civil penalty authority.
Our jurisdiction is broader. We don't rely on State law. It is
a Federal law. When we have a case involving contempt, if the
Secretary were to take it to the Department of Justice, then it
goes to Federal court. The Federal court judge then takes it
more seriously. After several contempt instances, there is
usually a probationary period and then incarceration. So what
we find is that when we have a problem with violation of the
law, we are taken more seriously, and so that is why we have
supported your efforts to expand our authority.
Plus, as we have just discussed from your reaction, I can
tell there is a lot of confusion about what our authority is in
the poultry industry. So we are constantly trying to explain to
folks in the poultry industry that, I am sorry, we do not have
jurisdiction over your contract because your contract is to
produce eggs. It is not a contract to grow for the purposes of
slaughter, and people do not understand that.
So for lots of different reasons we would like to see our
jurisdiction expanded.
Ms. Kaptur. If there were to be a Federal agency
responsible for oversight on the egg-laying aspect, would that
be FDA, if the law permitted it, it wouldn't be your agency,
you are saying, because you say you are only involved in
slaughter?
Ms. Waterfield. No.
Ms. Kaptur. I know that, but if one were to think about who
should be the logical instrumentality?
Ms. Waterfield. It would probably be us, because the idea
is to police unfair practices between the person growing or
handling the chickens and the integrator or the processor. So
you are basically overseeing the contract, which is we are
overseeing the practices between the two parties, which is
basically what we do in the other types of contracts that we
are looking at. We are policing that industry for unfair
practices in any other type of situation, so the contract
specifies how the parties are to relate to one another. We just
go in and make sure the contract terms are being applied fairly
and uniformly.
Ms. Kaptur. I thank you very much. It has been an
enlightening discussion, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Goode has just
joined us. I will yield to Mr. Goode.
HYDRILLA
Mr. Goode. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have really one
question, probably to Mr. Acord. Can you tell me what you are
doing researchwise, and also in working with communities in
combatting hydrilla in inland lakes.
Mr. Acord. We are not doing very much with that at all.
That is research done by ARS and the other kind of outreach and
discussion with communities would be done through the
cooperative extension service and through State agencies.
Mr. Goode. So your division then is not focusing on
hydrilla at all?
Mr. Acord. Not to any great extent. We have, in the past,
performed control work on hydrilla, but it is very, very
limited, and we haven't seen an expansion of that in a long
time.
Mr. Goode. That work that you did do, was it fruitful?
Mr. Acord. In some cases we were successful. In others we
were not. It depends on the level of local cooperation and
local participation. I don't believe we are going to get into
any larger-scale programs at this point.
Mr. Goode. In the last 5, or even 10 years, where have you
done hydrilla?
Mr. Acord. We have done some technical assistance work with
Virginia, some here in Potomac, or in the Potomac River. There
is some work that was been done a number of years ago. Other
sites, I cannot tell you specificly as to where we have done
it, but we could certainly provide that for the record.
Mr. Goode. Could you just tell me the sites you looked at
in Virginia and when you did.
Mr. Acord. The only ones that I am aware of was on the
Potomac River.
Mr. Goode. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:
APHIS is aware of various hydrilla projects in the past for applied
methods and in inland lakes. These projects include the following:
APHIS Whiteville North Carolina Methods Development
Lab led a Hydrilla project in the 1981-93. Efforts included
pesticide treatment methods and use of triploid grass carp,
mostly centered in Florida and the Imperial Valley irrigation
canals of California.
APHIS funded operational programs in irrigation
canals in Mexico for the last several years. In 2002, APHIS is
funding part of a Hydrilla triplois carp program in the lower
Rio Grande river, in cooperation with the Bureau of
Reclamation. This is a matching grant through the Pulling
Together Initiative (PTI) sponsored by Federal Interagency
Committee for Management of Noxious and Invasive Weeds, and
managed by National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
Several aquatic weed survey efforts have been
conducted including a Hydrilla survey though the PTI in recent
years. Such a PTI grant funded in 2002 is an aerial survey
project with Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
APHIS has funded a small project on biological
control of Hydrilla at Wakula Springs, near Tallahassee,
Florida through a cooperative agreement with Florida A & M
University. There appears to have been some survey and/or
technical support efforts done or coordinated by Whiteville Lab
in Virginia in the past, but not specifically by APHIS for
control or eradication projects.
In the past, state-funded pass-through money to the
Virginia Department of Agriculture may have been provided to
local cooperators. A private control company contact indicates
several current privately funded Hydrilla control projects in
Virginia combine integrated use of pesticides and triploid
grass carp.
Mr. Bonilla. Thank you Mr. Goode. We appreciate you all
being here today and look forward to working with you as we put
our bill together this year. We appreciate your patience with
the vote we had that interrupted us for a few minutes, and we
appreciate the subcommittee members who are juggling a lot of
hearings today.
Mr. Nethercutt mentioned the defense hearing. I happen to
be on that one too. I missed the whole thing, but we are going
to get our jobs done this year the best we can. At this time
the subcommittee will stand adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
W I T N E S S E S
__________
Page
Acord, B. R...................................................... 409
Dewhurst, S. B................................................... 409
Hawks, W. T...................................................... 409
Kaplan, Dennis................................................... 1
Reed, P. S....................................................... 1
Rey, M. E........................................................ 1
Thomas, Brenda................................................... 1
Waterfield, JoAnn................................................ 409
Yates, A. J...................................................... 409
I N D E X
__________
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
Page
Administrative Efficiencies...................................... 28
Agricultural Management Assistance............................... 245
Air Quality...................................................... 102
American Customer Satisfaction Index............................. 2
American Farm Bureau Federation Concerns......................... 227
American Heritage Rivers......................................... 157
Animal Agriculture and Production................................ 158
Animal Feeding Operations (AFO):
Environmental Risks.......................................... 30
Impacts...................................................... 50
Technical Assistance...................................... 163, 190
Barthel v. USDA.................................................. 227
Biobased Fuels..................................................95, 230
Biographies:
Mark Rey, Under Secretary Natural Resources & Environment.... 11
Pearlie Reed, Chief, NRCS.................................... 23
Lawrence Clark, Deputy Chief for Science and Technology...... 24
Brenda M. Thomas, Acting Budget Director, NRCS............... 25
Budget for Under Secretaries..................................... 37
Colleges and Universities Agreements............................. 182
Commitment to Conservation....................................... 36
Congressional Projects Funding................................... 173
Conservation Compliance.......................................... 122
Conservation Infrastructure......................................29, 51
Conservation Operations (CO):
Allocations of Funds......................................... 179
Erosion...................................................... 33
Funding Request.............................................. 216
Increased Funding..........................................176, 238
Pay Cost Increase............................................ 210
Conservation Programs:
Farm Bill Applications....................................... 239
Land Covered................................................. 90
Land Toxicity................................................ 50
Private Lands Conservation...................................12, 76
State and Local Funding Activities........................... 124
Technical Assistance Funding..........................124, 125, 176
Conservation Reservation Enhancement Program..................... 39
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP):
Costs-Share Policy..........................................41, 182
Funding...................................................... 204
Pilot Acreage................................................ 225
Technical Assistance Funding...............................197, 207
Conservation Security Program....................................37, 24
Conserving Soil and Water........................................ 34
Customer Service Rating.......................................... 29
Dought Risk Assessment........................................... 241
Emergency Watershed Program (EWP):
Emergency Watershed Program.............................3, 141, 195
Draft Environmental Impact Statement......................... 196
Flood Plain Easements........................................ 173
Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP):
Acreage and Funding.......................................... 161
Allocation Method............................................ 159
Farm Bill Funding............................................ 204
Priority/Non Priority Area Funding........................... 156
Planning..................................................... 249
Technical Assistance Reimbursement........................... 173
Explanatory Notes................................................ 251
Farm Bill Conservation Programs.................................51, 238
Farm Bill Conservation Title....................................35, 229
Farm Size and Concentration....................................245, 247
Farmland Protection Program (FPP):
Cumulative Summary........................................... 101
Farmland Protection Program.................................. 99
Forest Legacy................................................ 96
Funding...................................................... 226
Funds Awarded................................................ 100
Funds Requested.............................................. 100
Flood Plain Easements............................................ 134
Florida Farm Foundation.......................................... 52
Foreign Assignments.............................................. 155
Forest Service Issue............................................. 35
Forest Service Vehicle Fleet and Alternative Fuels............... 230
Forestry Incentives Program....................................194, 204
Funding for:
Advisory and Assistance Object Class......................... 211
Land and Structures Decrease................................. 211
New Information Technology Through CCE....................... 194
Staff Year Costs............................................. 224
The Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program....... 225
Water Quality Incentives Fiscal Years 1996-2003.............. 145
GIS Activities................................................... 126
Grants and Agreements..........................................205, 214
Grazing Lands:
Acreage....................................................237, 239
Funding....................................................151, 152
Specialists.................................................. 151
Technical Assistance Staff Years............................. 151
Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI):
Allocation................................................... 198
Budget....................................................... 151
Funding...................................................... 158
Increase..................................................... 188
Guidance for Reprogramming Proposals............................. 105
Headquarters Carry Over Funds.................................... 210
Headquarters Staff............................................... 122
House and Senate Farm Bills...................................... 238
Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.................................... 150
Illinois River Basin Pilot Project............................... 197
International Activities......................................... 150
International Involvement........................................ 247
Introduction of Witnesses........................................ 1
Land Owners Important Decision Makers............................ 103
Land Stewards.................................................... 30
National Grazing Land Technology Institute Funding............... 152
National Grazing Lands........................................... 188
National Soil Information System................................. 127
Northwest Salmon Recovery Initiative............................. 157
NRCS:
Funding Requests............................................. 153
Office Closures.............................................. 197
Staff Year Table............................................. 123
Staffing Levels.............................................. 153
Vehicle Fleet and Alternative Fuels.......................... 231
Object Class Breakdowns.......................................... 163
Opening Remarks by Mr. Bonilla................................... 1
Outsourcing Plan............................................. 217
Performance Goal Pilot Project............................... 193
Personnel Actions................................................ 187
Plant Materials Centers (PMC):
Funding....................................................127, 128
New Releases...............................................129, 130
Royalty Collection........................................... 134
Private vs. Public Land Tree Cover............................... 76
Program Evaluation Studies....................................... 135
Question Submitted for the Record:
Chairman Bonilla............................................. 121
Mr. Latham................................................... 227
Ms. Kaptur................................................... 230
Mr. Farr..................................................... 249
Resource Conservation & Development (RC&D):
Allocation to Centers and Institutes......................... 206
Applicant Areas........................................49, 155, 191
Applications Pending Approval.........................187, 190, 192
Areas Funded..........................................156, 176, 204
Council Funding............................................190, 192
Councils Role................................................ 187
Federal and Non-Federal Assistance........................... 143
Funding Request.............................................. 216
Loans........................................................ 145
Measures Adopted, Planned, and Completed..................... 144
Northwest Iowa Prairie RC&D.................................. 229
Resource Conservation & Development.....................3, 196, 231
Regional Project Allocations..................................... 148
Reimbursements for Soil Surveys.................................. 127
Relationship with EPA............................................ 31
Report on Allocations to States.................................. 207
Reprogramming:
Authority.................................................... 104
Funds........................................................ 49
Soil Surveys:
Completed and Published...................................... 126
Funding and Staffing......................................... 155
State Listing................................................ 200
State and Local Appropriations................................... 123
State and Local Funding........................................134, 163
Status of Texas Field Office Telecommunications Pilot Program.... 210
Suwannee River Basin............................................. 26
Tanana River Assistance.......................................... 197
Technical Assistance for all Conservation Programs............... 125
Technical Centers................................................ 123
Technical Service Centers and Regional Offices and Institutes.... 123
Termination of Water Resources Program........................... 32
Third-Party Vendors.............................................. 103
TMDL and CAFO Rules Compliance................................... 31
Transfer of GSA Rent Costs....................................... 216
Urban Resources Partnership...................................... 196
Urban Sprawl....................................................96, 233
Water Quality:
Examples..................................................... 146
Regional Projects..........................................148, 149
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (W&FPO):
Funding Request.......................................163, 195, 216
Geographic Breakdown.......................................136, 137
Unobligated Balance.......................................... 139
Watersheds:
Allocation to Headquarters................................... 206
Current Status of PL-534 Projects............................ 135
Watershed Program.....................................102, 193, 235
Watershed Program Termination................................ 27
Watershed Projects Backlog................................... 189
Watershed Projects Modified or Deleted During FY 2001.142, 143, 189
Watershed Protection.........................................26, 30
Watershed Rehabilitation..........................38, 120, 205, 216
Watersheds Summary........................................... 140
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP):
Acres......................................................121, 182
Farm Bill Acreage............................................ 226
Staffing and Costs.........................................121, 182
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program Funding...................... 226
Written Testimony:
Statement of Mark Rey........................................ 5
Statement of Pearlie S. Reed................................. 13
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
Administrative Expenses.......................................... 587
ADP Purchases.................................................... 591
Biography, Administrator, A.S. Yates............................. 457
Electronic Business Standards.................................... 625
Electronic Marketing............................................. 624
Explanatory Notes................................................ 641
Farm Bill........................................................ 620
Farmers Market.................................................573, 622
Federal Milk Order Program....................................... 615
Federal Seed Act................................................. 579
Federal Seed Program......................................532, 608, 629
Food Purchases and the Small Farmer.............................. 539
Food Purchases, Linkage of with Nutrition Reports................ 625
Global Market Expansion.......................................... 626
Grading.......................................................... 568
Cotton and Tobacco........................................... 591
Grading Fee Increase......................................... 569
Qualified Through Verification Program....................... 592
Inspection and Certification of Equipment........................ 601
International Standards.......................................... 606
International Trade Prices and Volume............................ 599
Lamb Grading and Certification Support........................... 615
Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting.............................. 601
Local Food Purchases............................................. 535
Market News:
Reports...................................................... 569
Mandatory Price Reporting........................................ 562
Microbiological Data Program:
Baseline Data..............................................632, 636
Opening Statement................................................ 442
Organic Certification Program.................................... 558
Organic Labeling................................................. 619
Payments to States and Possessions.............................652, 579
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act.......................... 585
Pesticide Data Program....................................577, 602, 608
Great Lakes Watersheds....................................... 629
INternational Marketing...................................... 619
Re-Registration.............................................. 588
Rapid Response............................................... 600
Spending by Agency........................................... 600
Pesticide Recordkeeping Program.................................. 589
Plant Variety Protection Act..................................... 592
Producers, Small and Medium...................................... 620
Program Fee Increase............................................. 569
Questions Submitted for the Record:
Chairman Bonilla............................................. 557
Mr. Kingston................................................. 616
Ms. Kaptur................................................... 619
Mr. Farr..................................................... 636
Referenda........................................................ 578
Reports:
GAO Report Findings.......................................... 596
OIG Report Findings.......................................... 594
Research and Promotion....................................577, 597, 616
Pork Check-Off Program....................................... 630
Task Force................................................... 606
Research Cooperative Agreements.................................. 597
Retail Marketing................................................. 624
Section 32:
Commodity Procurement........................................ 616
Commodity Purchases and Nutrition.....................582, 601, 612
Surplus Removal.............................................. 581
Emergency Surplus Removal..................................580, 614
Export Purchases............................................. 582
Summary of Pork Purchases.................................... 599
State Option Contracts....................................... 612
Un-obligated Balances........................................ 612
Removal of Defecting Commodities............................. 613
Direct Payment Program....................................... 613
Spending..................................................... 614
Standardization.................................................. 567
Tobacco Programs................................................. 568
Trade Agreements................................................. 620
Transportation................................................... 590
Transportation and Marketing Programs............................ 617
Transportation System............................................ 607
Wholesale Market Development...................................570, 574
Witness Statement--AMS........................................... 443
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
Accomplishments.................................................895-896
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection....759-765, 790, 791, 794, 806, 897,
907
Ames Facility.................................................... 902
Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement................... 786
Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance.......................898-899
Animal Import Centers...........................................782-783
Animal Welfare/Animal Care.................................708-750, 887
Argentine Citrus................................................793-794
Asian Longhorned Beetle.........................................791-792
Automated Targeting System....................................... 911
Avian Influenza.................................................. 900
Aviation Operations and Safety................................... 797
Biologics.......................................................788-789
Biotechnology..................................................784, 902
Bison Quarantine Facility........................................ 885
Boll Weevil.......................................756-757, 884-885, 891
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy...........................878-879, 900
Brown Citrus Aphid..............................................785-786
Brucellosis...............................................751, 805, 885
Budget Request.................................................785, 910
Cattle Ticks....................................................765-766
Chronic Wasting Disease.........................................885-886
Citrus Canker.....................................799-800, 858, 889-890
Civil Penalties.................................................. 756
Commodity Credit Corporation......................801-802, 805-806, 908
Congressional Directives........................................858-875
Contingency Funds...............................................782-783
Cost Share......................................................908-909
Emergency Authority........................................773-777, 808
Emergency Management System................................799, 879-880
Emergency Preparedness........................................... 899
Exotic Ticks....................................................877-878
Exports....................................................896-897, 904
Farm Bill......................................................892-8984
Federal/Non-Federal Dollars.....................................780-781
Feral Swine............................................800-801, 809-810
Financial and Personnel Resources................................ 892
Food Safety.....................................................911-912
Foot-and-Mouth Disease........................................... 752
Foreign Animal Diseases.......................787-788, 806-807, 876-877
Foreign Pests and Diseases...............894-895, 896, 897-898, 907-908
Fruit Fly.........................................752-753, 875-876, 894
Genetically Engineered Crops..................................... 906
Grants to States................................................. 900
Grasshopper...................................................... 888
Golden Nematode.................................................887-888
Health and Safety Standards.....................................905-906
Homeland Security................................................ 875
Imported Fire Ant..........................................789-790, 798
Imported Meat...................................................910-911
Integrated Systems Acquisition Project..........................757-758
Interceptions.................................................... 897
International Programs..........................................784-785
Invasive Species...........................................904-905, 906
Kapra Beetle....................................................900-901
Kudzu............................................................ 790
Livestock Protection Program....................................810-811
Management Information System.................................... 809
Management Information System.................................... 809
Medicine......................................................... 900
National Germplasm Quarantine Center............................. 769
National Monitoring and Residue Analysis Laboratory.............. 787
National Wildlife Research Center................................ 794
Nonlethal Methods..........................................790-791, 903
Noxious Weeds..............................................755, 888-889
Object Class Breakout...........................................811-858
Outbreaks of Pests and Diseases.................................770-773
Overseas Locations.........................................778-779, 895
Palmer Alaska Facility........................................... 805
Pest Detection..................................................881-884
Pierce's Disease................................................804-805
Pink Bollworm..................................................781, 889
Plum Island Animal Disease Center...............................769-770
Plum Pox Virus................................................... 886
Port Information Network Operations.............................. 911
Predator Control...............................................796, 802
Pseudorabies....................................................753-755
Public Information Campaigns..................................... 898
Questions Submitted for the Record:
Mr. Bonilla.................................................. 708
Ms. Kaptur................................................... 892
Ms. DeLauro.................................................. 910
Rabies.....................................................786, 802-803
Regionalization.................................................807-808
Research and Development Contracts............................... 813
Saltcedar Tree................................................... 789
Scrapie........................................................765, 886
Screwworm......................................................795, 801
Silverleaf Whitefly............................................783, 790
Smuggling Interdiction.........................................897, 898
Sudden Oak Disease............................................... 799
Testing.......................................................... 903
Travel..........................................................813-858
Tropical Bont Tick..............................................777-778
Trust Fund Agreements...........................................792-793
Tuberculosis..................................................... 757
VAC-TRAC Verification System..................................... 797
User Fees.............................................783-784, 794, 808
Wildlife Services............................766-768, 796, 802, 808-809
Wolf Control....................................................795-796
GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION
ADP Hardware/Software Purchases.................................. 1,050
Aflatoxin Inspections............................................ 1,040
Anti-Competitive Behavior........................................ 1,051
Anti-Competitive Provisions of the P&SA.....................1,055-1,056
Auction Market Failures.......................................... 1,043
Anti-Competitive Practices..................................1,060-1,061
Biography of Deputy Administrator Waterfield..................... 484
Biosafety Protocol..........................................1,054-1,055
Biotechnology.................................................... 1,054
Biotechnology Facility........................................... 1,052
Carcass Merit Purchasing Technologies.......................1,057-1,058
Comparison of International Standards............................ 1,062
Competition, Fair Trade Practices, Financial Protection.......... 1,046
Competitive Structure of the Poultry Industry.................... 1,051
Complaints From Livestock Producers.............................. 1,035
Custodial Account Compliance Audits.........................1,045-1,046
Dealer Failures.................................................. 1,047
Dealer/Order Buyer Financial Failures.......................1,041-1,042
E-Commerce......................................................537-538
Economic/Statistical Analysis...............................1,046-1,047
eGovernment Initiatives.......................................... 1,056
Explanatory Notes...........................................1,067-1,108
Exported Grain Complaints........................................ 1,040
Foreign Complaints Regarding U.S. Grain Exports.............1,064-1,065
Four Firm Concentration.....................................1,042-1,043
FY 2003 Budget Request........................................... 1,046
GIPSA Hotline Calls.............................................. 550
GIPSA Opening Statement.........................................458-483
Grain Dust Explosions............................................ 1,040
Grain Facilities............................................1,035-1,036
Grain Inspected and/or Weighed..............................1,036-1,039
Grain Inspection................................................. 1,063
International Monitoring Program............................1,048-1,049
IT Environment................................................... 1,053
IT Security.................................................1,053-1,054
Johnson Amendment................................................ 524
Licensing Fees................................................... 537
Livestock Slaughter.........................................1,043-1,044
Live Weight Purchases.......................................1,056-1,057
Measures of Carcass Quality.................................1,058-1,059
Packers & Stockyards Act v. Perishable Agricultural Commodities
Act.......................................................1,061-1,062
Pesticide Data Program........................................... 1,048
Poultry Compliance Complaints.................................... 1,041
Poultry Industry Complaints.....................................553-555
Proposed Legislation............................................. 1,059
Proposed Regulation--Feed Weighing............................... 1,050
Questions Submitted for the Record:
Chairman Bonilla............................................. 1,035
Ms. Kaptur................................................... 1,060
Rapid Response Teams........................................1,051-1,052
Rapid Test Performance Evaluation Program...................1,062-1,063
Select Elements in Grains........................................ 1,047
Slaughters/Processors Subject to the P & S Act..............1,044-1,045
Unified Data Warehouse........................................... 1,053
Unrecovered Losses............................................... 1,047
User Fees........................................................ 1,066
Violation Cases--Grain........................................... 1,048
Violation Report Calls........................................... 1,041
Web Server Farm.................................................. 1,052